What is Arbitration and why shouldn’t law enforcement officers act as arbitrators on duty?

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where a neutral third party, known as an arbitrator, is appointed to hear both sides of a dispute and make a binding decision. It is often used as an alternative to going to court and can be faster less formal.

Law enforcement officers should not take on the role an arbitrator while on duty for several reasons:

1. **Impartiality**: Arbitrators must be completely neutral and impartial. Law enforcement officers, however, are tasked with upholding the law and may have biases or obligations that could affect their neutrality.

2. **Training and Expertise**: Arbitrators typically have specialized training in conflict resolution and legal matters. Law enforcement officers may not have the same level of expertise in these areas, which could lead to unfair or uninformed decisions.

3. **Authority and Power**: Law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce laws and make arrests. Mixing this power with the role of an arbitrator could lead to conflicts of interest and misuse of authority.

4. **Legal Boundaries**: The role of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to interpret or mediate them. Taking on the role of an arbitrator could blur these boundaries and lead to legal complications.

5. **Public Perception**: The public may perceive law enforcement officers as biased if they take on the role of an arbitrator, which could undermine trust in the police force.

For these reasons, it is generally advisable for law enforcement officers to stick to their primary role of enforcing the law and leave arbitration to trained, neutral professionals.