The case of police officer Tom Delany concerns the incident when Delany, meeting his commitments, has to shoot a man, who wounded a narcotics detective, despite the fact it was Delany’s off-duty day. After reading this case I had a lot of questions about whether it was Delany’s duty to kill the criminal. Should we justify or accuse Delany’s behavior? Was there any chance to let Reggie, a criminal, go? And what’s more important what would I do if I were Delany?
The case states that Delany’s wife tried to stop Delany from intervening in the altercation between two men in the street. But Delany’s instinct prevailed over his wife’s warnings. The police officer felt that it was his duty to punish the offender. If I were a police officer at the case in point I believe I would feel the same. I consider Delany’s interference in this incident can be accounted for by his subjection to moral and social norms that society demands to be strictly followed. As far as Delony finds out that it is his colleague that has been wounded he becomes more determined to catch the offender. He rushes after the suspect with his gun ready to fire. He, actually, enjoys the process of pursuit because it takes the fight out of the criminal. This time it takes more time to drive a suspect into the corner.
This is when Delany has to make his choice. He gets to know the name of a suspect, Reggie, and hears the story that he tells According to Reggie, he acted in self-defense after the police officer, a narcotics detective, demanded to pay him more to be able to work in that street. It was, actually, a detective who shot in himself, Reggie said.
In further conversation, Delany finds out Reggie’s views concerning police and abandoned children. The suspect reveals that he has already been to prison, and now he’s in public housing and on welfare. Besides, he had a really difficult childhood and no one came to improve his life. That is why he considers that police protect corrupt politicians, bankers, lawyers, and judges from people like him who don’t play their rules instead of protecting society. These words don’t help Reggie and he is killed soon as he tries to escape. I believe that killing a suspect without any trial is wrong. From my perspective, Delany’s decision was greatly influenced by the fact that Reggie shot a detective and accused him of extortion.
In terms of social conflict theory that different groups of society have different rights and privileges and the more powerful groups always get the upper hand over the groups that possess less power. Reasoning my decision to catch up with the criminal, collect evidence and wait for trial, I would not use social conflict theory. There is no doubt that there is no equality in society but it doesn’t mean that less privileged groups of people should be denied any rights and possibilities to prove their rights.
This theory rejects any cooperation between social groups. I believe taking into account mitigating circumstances that Reggie, according to his words, acted in self-defense it could be possible to solve this case in a different, less destructive way.
As far as structural functionalism is concerned, it states that all groups, institutions, customs, and other parts of society are interconnected. As I have already mentioned I believe that Delany acted driven by the social norms and traditions. He acted as a policeman that should do his job. And he has done it. From my point of view, the social norms and rules that he followed can’t be applied to every case. It is necessary to take into account all the details and not only aspire to a coherent work of every element of society regardless of the premises and consequences.