t an arrest can be made, while another may deduce that such probable cause is not clearly sufficient in the same situation. Either way, the police officer may not necessarily be wrong, just as long as their actions were properly justified.
             We see this decision to arrest everyday in our society, most especially while we are driving. On a daily basis, there are numerous driving laws that we can be held accountable for and punished. Such instances can range from speeding to drunk-driving. For example, an officer might just issue a warning to a friendly out-of-towner for speeding, while at the same time arrest a belligerent local for the same violation. To a larger degree, a police officer may strictly arrest a drunk-driver or inversely decide to just keep an eye on them and tell them to "sleep it off" (Peak 142). You can say that probable cause exists in the latter scenario; it's all a matter of how an officer chooses to make that decision.
             For the most part, a police officer will make their decision with the best intentions. Although in other instances, corrupting influences can play a part in their decision-making which can spawn a negative cycle of policing and could promote contempt and recurring violence between the police and the communities that they are sworn to protect. First, I will explore the corrupting influence of politics in policing.
             The closeness of politics to policing can be viewed as a hindrance to the job. Political pressure can sway the actions of policing and can alienate the needs of a community. A mayor, for instance, can order the police to focus its attention on a particular view of crime prevention while ignoring others. During his term as mayor in New York City, Mayor David Dinkins was sharply criticized for not enhancing police involvement in community relations; most notably with the racial tension in Crown Heights, the Korean Grocers boycott in Brooklyn and the civil stri...