Discretion in the context of law enforcement is not easily operationalized, but the concept essentially refers to a law enforcement officer’s agency and ability to choose how they will (or will not) respond to law violations and encounters with community members. The amount of discretion available to officers can be expanded or restricted based on the structural, cultural and situational context of their setting; these contexts also influence the way officers make decisions and utilize their available discretion.

Characteristics of the law enforcement agency, the officer, the community and the situation or involved persons are significant in the use of discretion (see Carrington and Schulenberg, 2003; Shukla et al, 2019). Urban-centric research finds that offense severity, prior record, offender attitude, presence of a victim, race or ethnicity, gender and officer philosophy are key common factors that influence the decision to arrest. Taking an individual into custody through arrest is the most formal method of social control that can be exerted by officers. However, officers also employ informal sanctions to exert social control in their communities. Such practices may include verbal warnings or threats, releasing a suspect, driving an offender home and more.

Effects of the rural on discretion, decision making and informal sanctions

In rural areas, police discretion is expanded owing to geographic isolation, lack of supervision or strict departmental policy dictating action, and density of acquaintanceship with residents and other actors in local justice-related agencies. Density of acquaintanceship refers to the personal knowledge, shared values and intimacy amongst community members who ‘all know each other’.

Officers who are included in such thick social networks rely on them for constant streams of information and are influenced by them when addressing crime and deviance. Shared knowledge and trust with residents in the community can expand officers’ ability to allow or facilitate informal methods of control. For example, tight relationships between an officer and the victim, offender and other justice-related actors can enable informal arrangements for restitution or restoration – such as an agreement that a vandalizer will fix the fence that they vandalized – in lieu of formal justice system processing.