Police officers hold a position of power in the criminal justice system, exercising authority over members of the public to maintain order in society. Much research in the field of criminal psychology focuses on understanding offenders and their offending, assisting police in their role of crime detection and investigation. However, research has also acknowledged that police officers themselves do not always act within the law or exercise their authority in acceptable or ethical ways. Where there is power, ultimately there is the risk of corruption, and policing is a high-risk occupation, rife with opportunities for criminal actions as well as workplace misconduct. The consequences can be far-reaching, with negative impacts on the criminal justice system including miscarriages of justice as well as reduced public support for the justice system through undermining beliefs in police legitimacy. This article discusses types of police wrongdoing, contributing factors, and some responses.
Definitions and Measurement
Knowledge of the extent of police wrongdoing is dependent on how it is defined and measured. While some authors use the terms corruption and misconduct interchangeably, and as synonymous with generalized workplace wrongdoing, others provide more specific definitions to acknowledge and distinguish a range of unethical practices. Police officers can be vulnerable to corruption defined as acting against their duty (or failing to act in accordance with their duty) in exchange for some sort of gain. This can be considered different from misconduct, which is typically breaking the internal rules of the organization but which does not necessarily involve a relationship with a corruptor. Finally, police officers can commit criminal offenses, the same as any member of society.
Sources of knowledge on this topic can be particularly problematic due to the secrecy of police officers and police culture more broadly, often termed the code of silence. This can impact the likelihood of wrongdoing coming to light as well as directly interfere with investigations. Historically, therefore, serious cases of corrupt conduct have often been revealed through whistle-blowers and media exposés, leading to large-scale investigations or commissions of inquiry. Examples include the beating of Rodney King in 1991 leading to the Christopher Commission investigation into the Los Angeles Police Department, the Fitzgerald Inquiry into corruption in the Queensland (Australia) Police after a series of media stories in 1987, and the Leveson Inquiry after the UK phone hacking scandal in 2011.
Less serious issues are often highlighted through complaints by members of the public. However, historically, the public lacked confidence in police to take such complaints seriously and investigate them impartially. This led to the establishment of independent complaint-handling bodies, some of which publicize extensive data on numbers and types of complaints received against officers in their jurisdiction. Such data, though, have been argued to represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of revealing problem behavior.
Difficulties in detection of acts of corruption or misconduct have led researchers to develop alternative measures, such as ethical climate surveys. These surveys measure officers’ ethical attitudes and hypothetical behavior in response to a variety of scenarios and can be used to monitor trends over time, both between and within police departments. This signifies a more research-oriented approach of monitoring issues rather than investigating individuals.
Cases and Types
Policing is not the only occupation open to corruption and misconduct, but police work offers some unique opportunities. Areas of police work involving large sums of money, such as those investigating drugs, vice, or robbery, have shown particular risks, as well as undercover police work and dealing with criminal informants. The powers delegated to officers, and the high degree of discretion they have in applying them, mean their decision-making can be vulnerable to internal and external influences. Officers may experience implicit biases when applying the law but can also face explicit attempts at influencing their conduct. This could range from a motorist trying to avoid a speeding ticket to organized criminals looking for protection for their illegal activities, and incentives can be wide-ranging.
The Knapp Commission, which investigated corruption in the New York Police Department in the early 1970s, highlighted the difference between officers who were meat eaters or grass eaters, proactively seeking out opportunities for large-scale gain or reactively responding to offers of low-level perks, respectively. Common to both, though, was an underlying motivation of benefit for the officer. However, scholars soon recognized that officers could also act corruptly to further organization goals. The Dirty Harry effect saw police rule breaking under the guise of the noble cause, that the ends justified the means. This could include illegal searches, planting evidence on suspects, ignoring due process (e.g., questioning suspects without legal representation), and forcing or falsifying confessions. While the motivation was to solve crime by ensuring the arrest and conviction of suspects, such behavior has led to high-profile miscarriages of justice around the world, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four in the United Kingdom in the 1970s.
After the 1990s, police deviance shifted from corrupt behavior toward the abuse of authority. Assault and excessive force consistently appear among the most common types of complaint against police across many jurisdictions around the world. Many scholars cite the inappropriate use of coercive force to be the central problem of police misconduct, creating a slippery slope toward more serious behavior such as lying and falsifying charges against the victim. This corruption– brutality relationship was noted by the Mollen Commission, which investigated the New York Police Department in 1994. The negative impact on police–community relations is also evident from high-profile public demonstrations and rioting in both the United States (e.g., in Ferguson, MO, in 2014) and the United Kingdom (e.g., the 2011 riots in London and other UK cities) in response to police use of deadly force.
There is also increasing interest in the conduct of police officers while off duty. Clearly, police officers should not be engaging in any form of criminal behavior, but many hold police officers to higher moral standards than ordinary citizens. Activities such as secondary employment, conduct in social situations (particularly involving alcohol or other substances) or on social media, as well as associations held by police officers can all come under scrutiny. Actions that do not conform to expected standards, even when out of uniform, can reduce public perceptions of the legitimacy of police officers and damage the reputation of whole police departments.
Causes and Contributors
Inquiries and research into police wrongdoing initially promoted individual-level explanations that labeled corrupt officers as rotten apples in an otherwise healthy barrel. This quickly gained traction with police departments as it was more palatable to identify and remove individuals than to consider problems widespread and systemic. Police recruitment still relies on such a perspective to a certain extent, with procedures to screen out undesirable traits, attitudes, and backgrounds considered unsuitable for police work. However, this perspective assumes that bad individuals will always be bad and so can be detected early and that removal of individuals will remove the problem; neither is always the case.
Subsequently, there was a growth in recognition of the policing culture as being inherently problematic, with ethnographic and observational research concluding that all police officers share common values and norms including a sense of social isolation from, and cynicism toward, the public, solidarity with fellow officers (the code of silence), and traditional notions of masculine behavior, as well as support for the use of coercion. However, these dimensions have been criticized as a stereotyped, negative view of police, and there is debate as to whether police culture is homogenous or varied. Thus, it is not only the officer’s cultural environment that is important, but how that officer responds to it. Differences in culture are also noted at distinct phases of officers’ careers and at different positional ranks.
A common finding of corruption inquiries is that certain policing structures and goals (organizational factors) can breed systemic problems and promote negative cultures that tolerate or perpetuate poor behavior. Much police work operates in an environment of low visibility, with a lack of supervision, where officers may encounter multiple opportunities to use their discretion as to whether and how they enforce the law. As noted, under these conditions, there can be opportunities for corruption, particularly in environments where large sums of money are involved. In addition to pressures from everyday encounters, the organization can contribute to problems through setting performance goals based on arrests, crime clear up rates, and other metrics that evaluate policing by the outcomes rather than the integrity of the process. Similarly, providing insufficient or unworkable policies and a lack of leadership to reinforce standards, oversee activities, or address behavioral issues can also promote a culture that tolerates misconduct and corruption. Early inquiries highlighted particular problems with supervisors turning a blind eye to wrongdoing or setting a bad example to junior officers through their own inappropriate behavior. Contemporary perspectives have begun to recognize the importance of supervisory behavior in terms of the fair treatment of officers and the effect this has on officers’ organizational commitment and rule adherence.
Responses and Prevention
Understanding the causes of misconduct and corruption aids in designing appropriate responses and prevention strategies. Inquiries into police corruption often highlight the ineffectiveness of police internal investigations and the need for greater external accountability of police agencies. Public confidence in the impartiality of police to investigate complaints against their own officers has typically been low. It is, therefore, common for police jurisdictions to have a mechanism for civilian oversight. However, the independence and scope of such a mechanism can vary greatly from the review of police decisions, to extensive powers and resources to independently investigate suspicions of corruption. While external agencies can provide the reassurance of independence and improve public confidence in complaint handling systems, police agencies must also take responsibility for the behavior of their employees for ambitions of police integrity to be considered genuine.
Reactive responses to misconduct include providing suitable consequences for rule breaking. This includes provision of remedial responses, such as counseling or retraining, as well as punishment and possible criminal prosecution of officers. Early intervention systems are a popular concept within police departments, whereby patterns of misconduct can be detected early through monitoring prescribed indicators, such as complaints, to identify and address problems early before they escalate in seriousness or frequency. More proactive approaches to improving behavior include applicant screening and enhanced ethics training, drug and alcohol testing of officers on duty, and risk management procedures, for example, registering gifts and conflicts of interest. Technology is also increasing police accountability. Beginning with the audio recording of police interviews to guard against false statements, now searches and seizures are routinely video recorded and, increasingly, officers are using body-worn video cameras to record their encounters on the street. Technology also helps to track police patrol cars, including during high-speed pursuits; record and control access to confidential information through individualized accounts; and provide sophisticated covert tactics for gathering intelligence on possible corrupt practices.
Finally, modern policing places more importance on the culture of integrity. Police agencies publicize their organizational goals and values, which typically include service delivery to the public, as well as ethics and fairness. These messages promote the integrity of the policing process, although there can still be some tension between these messages and numeric outcomes–based performance measures. Officers are also encouraged to come forward and report wrongdoing (indeed in some jurisdictions not doing so is a disciplinary offense) and are provided support to manage ethical dilemmas in the workplace, such as telephone advice lines.
There is a range of reactive and proactive measures that jurisdictions can adopt to improve police behavior. Whether a minimal or more advanced approach is chosen may depend on the environment, including the opportunities for wrongdoing; there is no one-size-fits-all strategy; solutions should be tailored to problems. Police departments must be open to scrutiny, be data driven, and learn from incidents in a way that recognizes the value of external assistance in tackling problems at the systemic level.
References:
- Kutnjak Ivkovic, S., & Haberfeld, M. (2015). Measuring police integrity across the world: Studies from established democracies and countries in transition. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
- Porter, L. E. (2005). Policing the police service: Theoretical and practical contributions to understanding and preventing corruption. In L. J. Alison (Ed.), Offender profiling and criminal investigation: A forensic psychologist’s casebook (pp. 143–169). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
- Prenzler, T., & den Heyer, G. (2016). Civilian oversight of police: Advancing accountability in law enforcement. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
- Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. Collumpton, UK: Willan.
- Rowe, M., & Lister, S. (2016). Accountability of policing. London, UK: Routledge.