Response Paper: Social Media

Response Paper: Social Media
Stuart’s Purpose in Writing the Article

In his article, Stuart focuses on educating law enforcement officers regarding the risks and rewards associated with the use of social media in their domain of work. He classifies the benefits of social media to law enforcement agencies as public relations, crime investigation, and prevention. According to Stuart, departments associated with law enforcement can open new communication avenues with the general public by increasing their presence on social media (Stuart 138). Social media allows these agencies to not only receive instantaneous information from the public, but it also acts as an electronic platform for interaction through the making of inquiries, suggestions, and providing useful tips for crime prevention (Stuart 138). Regardless of the numerous benefits linked with the use of social media in law enforcement, Stuart warns police departments against potential risks related to the mixing of personal and professional life on these sites.

Dangers of Social Media Use by Police Officers
Issues related to the converging of professional and personal life are the main danger of social media use by law enforcement officers that Stuart highlights in his article. Notably, most officers reveal their identity as members of law enforcement on these platforms. It is vital to note that the mixing of personal and professional life is a potential source of discredit to not only the officers but also their departments (Stuart 138).

Some officers may post material regarding their inability to work due to issues such as fatigue, a situation that can result in the public questioning their suitability for duty in the case of emergencies and subtle occasions. Extreme presence on these platforms can cause unintentional exposure of incongruous details, which may, in turn, attract unnecessary responses from intent parties such as the media (Stuart 138). Criminals can also capitalize on private details regarding officers on these platforms to organize crime.
Substantiality of Stuart’s Support
Stuart argues that irrespective of the broad range of benefits associated with the use of social media in law enforcement, officers must be aware of potential risks. His argument is convincing as it touches both on the rewards and dangers related to the use of social media among police officers. Social media can boost criminal investigation and compromise the work of law enforcement officers concurrently. Thus, law enforcement departments must recognize the consequences that may arise from their officers exposing excessive information concerning their professional and personal lives on the internet and related platforms. The presence of officers on the internet cannot be avoided considering the widespread use of social media. As opposed to abstaining from these platforms, law enforcement department should establish criteria that will balance the use of social media (Stuart 139). The guidelines must ensure the protection of the integrity of investigations, administration, and constitutional rights of officers.
Stuart’s Audience
The primary audience for Stuart’s article was law enforcement agencies, personnel, and administrators. His explanation of the use, benefits, and drawbacks of social media in this domain appears appropriate. He identifies social media as a societal force that police officers cannot desist despite the potential dangers that may arise from converging personal and professional life on these platforms. He encourages agencies in this realm to establish necessary criteria and controls that will increase the benefits of social media while minimizing incidents associated with misuse. The author emboldens law enforcement administrators to ensure sufficient training of their officers in addition to setting appropriate standards. Through training, officers will optimize social media use for the welfare of the general public.

Work Cited
Stuart, Robert. Social Media: Establishing Criteria for Law Enforcement Use. In Elements of Argument: A Test and Reader (11th ed., pp.137-141). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins. (Reprinted from FBI.GOV, 2013, February 5).