Hi all - I am drowning and I need help fast!!!

I am doing my dissertation and been asked by my Supervisor to include a Chapter on "Policy Considerations". The problem???
What does this entail? What does one write about in a Chapter on Policy considerations? What exactly does that phrase mean???

I will be grateful if any of you good fellows out there can help! Thanks!!!

Well, I take it to mean "social implications" or "politico-legal consequences" of your study. I you find, for instance, that rape trials are very harsh on victims, your policy consideration might be that rape victims should have state-financed support personnel during a trial. In other words, what kind of political and legal reforms should be made on the basis of your dissertation. Good luck with your study!

Hey tmalmine - many thanks for the quick response! Its worth more than gold to me!
I reckon I should push my luck...
I am actually writing on Police brutality and death in police custody. What sort of issues do you reckon I should address in the Policy considerations chapter?
Sorry about the bother but this brother is really desperate!
Thanks again

Well, some policy issues that come to mind would be:

1) how to tame police brutality?
2) how to diminish racism among police officers?
3) is law effective at all when trying to prevent death-in-custody cases?
4) Could your home country learn anything from other legal systems?
5) the relationship between law and lawyers, on the one hand, and other professions, like phycisians and psychiatrists, on the other?
6) What kind of issues should be considered when policemen are hired?
7) Could hiring more female, or ethnical minorities, officers diminish police brutality?
8) What kind of sanctions would be the most effective in cases of police brutality?
9) Should police education include more tolerance issues, race-relations issues, and psychiatry, instead of physical exercise and interragation tactics?
10) How to reconcile safety, human rights, and the current "War on Terror"?

These are just off the top my head, I don't know that much about the issue. But I think these would be "policy considerations", i.e. neither pure legal analysis nor brute empirical facts, but your own politico-legal ideas and suggestions that you can back up with your own research findings.

tmalmime Sir, you are the best man I know.thanks!!! now lemme go to work...

Hi Beckham... I am Goncalo from Portugal :) (No, I'm not joking!)

Toni already put forward the essentials. I just want to add a note on method. A pure analytical perspective on your topic would be a description on how legal officials, notably police officers and judges, face the problem of police brutality. Because the law is a social institution even this descriptive job is full of policy considerations. Police brutality within a legal system can only be understood in terms of a recognized policy or set of policies. For instance, you may conclude that after September 11 the prevailing policy in the US (if there is one) is that torture is allowed in certain, perhaps not very well determined, cases. Interestingly enough you could say, for instance, that although any civilized country has written laws against torture, those laws lost part of their normative power because police officers were able to introduce informally new policy patterns deeply resistant to judicial scrutiny. (I using this as an example; I have no idea if this accurate or not). Your job, in your "analytical chapter(s)", is to say that the legal system enforces policy A or B.

My opinion is that your supervisor wants you to go beyond this. He wants you to explore how different policies meet certain normative claims. For instance, if the goal is to balance civil rights against rising social claims for security, is the empowerment of police officers the appropriate thing to do? Isn't there any other way, one that allows a better job in preserving both freedom and security? Moreover, if police empowerment is inevitable, what criteria should govern the use of new powers? Are legal rules the appropriate mechanisms to enforce this criteria or should we opt for a flexible set of standards? Shouldn't we attempt to balance these new powers with more effective and sharpened control mechanisms?

You can still go beyond this level and argue that the problem is not one of "policy" but one of "value" or "principle". The problem, for instance, is that public debate is dominated by a false dichotomy: freedom vs. security. That this very dichotomy represents a step backwards in the fight for a just society. That it endangers the very moral foundations of civilization.

I believe that your supervisor wants you to move from level one to level two, without touching directly level three concerns. It is not uncommon, since legal research is becoming gradually less value-free (i.e. analytical), but at the same time is moving away from moral debate. What you're being asked to do is to explore the appropriate means to achieve a given set of goals. This is what people generally mean when they talk about "policy".

Many thanks to you too Goncalo! You have been very helpful. Hope you savour your Ronaldo-won victory until later in the week when the French will break your hearts! Just kidding, good luck to Portugal and may the better team win!