Police work by its very nature involves the slippery slope (the potential for gradual deterioration of social-moral inhibitions and perceived sense of permissibility for deviant conduct). In fact, the whole unspoken "dark" side of criminal justice work involves putting up with conditions that are at less than usual comfort levels; i.e., "slumming it".
Police are routinely involved in undercover work which involves taking on false identities and inducing crime. Police are allowed to make false promises to hostage takers and kidnappers. Police feed disinformation to the media. Police are trained to be deceptive at interviewing and interrogation. Police make all kinds of excuses to get out of nuisance calls. Police trade or sell their days off and desirable work assignments. Police angle themselves into cases requiring court appearances and manipulate the overtime system to earn an average of $5000 more a year. Police strain the truth to protect loved ones and crime victims. Police routinely invade privacy via surveillance and other technological means. Police fighting the drug problem may encounter more loose cash than the gross national product of some small countries. And as with sting operations, there's something that's just plain sick about a system that condones the police making a product, selling the product, and then arresting people for buying the product.
Police deviance is a much broader term than
corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms,
values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police
standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when
people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group
too. The following definitions may be
helpful:
-
Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics
-
Corruption -- forbidden acts involving misuse of office for gain
-
Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures
-
Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or relatives (nepotism)
Although this lecture is about deviance, it
might be useful to take a brief look at a couple of these other terms.
Corruption is criminal conduct that can involve under using one's authority,
overusing one's authority, or profiteering via one's authority. The key element
is misuse of official authority; the gain can be personal or for the common
good. Corruption is bad because it undermines integrity, the state of policing
being whole or undivided. Corruption has been the target of numerous efforts at
creating topologies. Here are three of the most popular topologies of
corruption:
Police misconduct is impropriety of office,
not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or
puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental
policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be
cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate
and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole.
The different types of misconduct are often classified as
follows:
-
Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use)
-
Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of suspect)
-
Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach)
THE MYTH OF THE ROTTEN
APPLE
According to the Knapp Commission, which blew the
whistle on the standard police explanation for corruption (he/she's a rotten
apple in an otherwise clean barrel), "rotten apples" are either weak individuals
who have slipped through the screening process or succumbed to the temptations
inherent in police work or deviant individuals who continue their deviance in an
environment that gives them ample opportunity. Police departments tend to use
the rotten apple theory or some variation of the "rogue cop" story to minimize
the public backlash against policing after every exposed act of corruption.
A functional explanation may be closer to the
truth, and is indeed supported by almost every scholarly observer on the
subject. A functional explanation is that corruption is inherent in society's
attempt to enforce unenforceable laws. Another approach is the "occupational
socialization" explanation, the polar opposite of rotten apple theory that is
sometimes called "rotten barrel" theory. According to this view, the very
structure of policing (exposure to unsavory characters, forgetting what you
learned in the academy, clannishness, and overzealous, misguided approaches to
crime control) provides plenty of opportunities to learn the entrenched patterns
of deviant police conduct that have been passed down thru
generations.
TYPES
OF POLICE
DEVIANCE
POLICE
GRATUITY
A gratuity is the receipt of
free meals, services, or discounts. Non federal police usually do not regard
these as forms of corruption ("not another lecture on the free cup of coffee or
police discount"). These are considered fringe benefits of the job.
Nevertheless, they violate the Code of Ethics because they involve financial
reward or gain, and they are corruption because the officer has been placed in a
compromising position where favors (a "fix") can be reasonably expected in the
future. When there is an implied favor (a "wink and nod"), it's called
"mooching". When the officer is quite blatant about demanding free services,
it's called
"chiseling".
Gratuities often lead to things like kickbacks
(bribery) for referring business to towing companies, ambulances, or garages.
Further up the scale comes pilfering, or stealing (any) company's supplies for
personal use. At the extreme, opportunistic theft takes place, with police
officers skimming items of value that won't be missed from crime scenes,
property rooms, warehouses, or any place they have access to. Theft of items
from stores while on patrol is sometimes called
"shopping".
POLICE SHAKEDOWNS
A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection
money. The typical scenario involves gay bars, which are considered the most
vulnerable. In some cities (like Boston for example), police are still charged
with the power to inspect bars for compliance with liquor regulations. Officers
are then in a position to threaten bar owners with violations if they do not
make payoffs, and promise to intercept ("fix") any other violation reports
processed through department channels. In other cities (like San Francisco, for
example), officers would promise extra protection against gay-bashing in return
for extra payments. In still other cities (like New Orleans, for example),
moonlighting officers would make extra money from "details" in liquor
establishments, and be paid extra for overlooking open sex or drug violations.
In some cities, police officers have complete control over liquor licenses and
even own nearby parking meters. To deal with the gay bar issue, many police
departments have tried hiring openly gay
recruits.
Shakedowns are also common with strip bars,
prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction
projects. In each case, the approach and modus operandi are somewhat variable,
because each officer subjects the business operator and/or patrons to the
shakedown differently.
POLICE
PERJURY
This is usually a means to effect an act of
corruption, leaving out certain pertinent pieces of information in order to
"fix" a criminal prosecution. "Dropsy" evidence is typical, where the officer
testifies untruthfully that he/she saw the offender drop some narcotics or
contraband. Lies that Miranda warnings have been given, when they haven't, are
also typical. Lying in court is called "testifying", and police can do it
coolly; they're trained
witnesses.
Other actors in the system, supervisors and
even judges, are often aware of the perjury. They pretend to believe police
officers who they know are lying. Everybody's happy with the system. The cop
gets credit for a good bust; the supervisor's arrest statistics look good; the
prosecutor racks up another win; the judge gets to give his little lecture
without endangering his reelection prospects, the defense lawyer gets his fee in
dirty money, and the public is thrilled that another criminal is off the street
(Dershowitz 1996).
Most perjury is committed by
decent cops who honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free unless they lie
about something.
POLICE
BRUTALITY
Police brutality has been defined as excessive force, name calling, sarcasm,
ridicule, and disrespect (President's Commission 1967). Other commissions have
simply used a vague definition as "any violation of due process". Kania and
Mackey's (1977) widely-regarded definition is "excessive violence, to an extreme
degree, which does not support a legitimate police function." When a citizen
charges police brutality, they may be referring to a number of things,
including:
-
profane or abusive language
-
commands to move or go home
-
field stops and searches
-
threats of implied violence
-
prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a pistol
-
the actual use of physical force
Only the last one of these (unreasonable
and unnecessary actual use of physical force) can be considered police
brutality. This is commonly expressed as "more than excessive force". Police
perjury and police brutality go hand in hand, as officers who commit brutality
will most likely lie on the stand to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit or
departmental charges. The reasons why an officer might engage in this kind of
conduct are many:
-
a small percentage may have been attracted to police work for the opportunity to enjoy physically abusing and hurting somebody
-
an officer may come to believe "it's a jungle out there"
-
an officer may be provoked and pushed beyond their endurance
The most common reason is occupational
socialization and peer support. One common belief is that it's necessary to come
down hard on those who resist arrest because they may kill the next police
officer who tries to arrest them (so you have to teach 'em a lesson). Another
practice is the "screen test", police jargon for applying the brakes on a police
vehicle to that the handcuffed prisoner in back will be thrown against the metal
protective screen.
Criminal justice experts are divided over
whether racial differences exist with respect to police use of force (Weisburd
et. al. 2000). On the one hand, the Christopher Commission (1991) stated that
white officers were somewhat more likely to use excessive force against
African-Americans, and watchdog groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and
Human Rights Watch have stated a pattern exists, but on the other hand,
respected researchers like Adams (1996) and Tonry (1995) as well as the U.S.
government itself have never unveiled a
pattern.
POLICE
PROFANITY
There are many reasons why a police officer would
use obscene and profane language. Effective use of verbal communication is one
of the skills expected in police work. Concepts such as "command voice" and
"command presence" are routinely taught at police training academies. The FCC
specifically condemns certain words on radio and television that are "patently
offensive", but there's no such mechanism for determining what's offensive with
interpersonal communication. The following topology
exists:
-
words having religious connotations (e.g., hell, goddamn)
-
words indicating excretory functions (e.g., shit, piss)
-
words connected with sexual functions (e.g., fuck, prick)
Generally, words with religious connotations
are considered the least offensive and words connected with sexual functions are
considered the most offensive. It's commonly the case, however, that use of such
language by police officers is purposive and not a loss of control or
catharsis.
-
to gain the attention of citizens who may be less than cooperative
-
to discredit somebody or something, like an alibi defense
-
to establish a dominant-submissive relationship
-
to identify with an in-group, the offender or police subculture
-
to label or degrade an out-group
POLICE SEX ON DUTY OR
DUTY-RELATED
Contacts with promiscuous females
and minimal supervision are part of the job. Sooner or later, every police
officer will be propositioned. There are a number of women who are attracted to
the uniform or the aura of the occupation. Every police officer will be able to
tell you stories about police "groupies". These are women who make the rounds by
waving at officers, getting them to stop or pull over, and then set up meetings
to have sex with them, or sometimes right then and there. A woman such as this
typically has sex with whole departments and hundreds of police officers. Other
situations involve:
-
traffic stops -- to get a closer look at the female or information about her
-
fox hunting -- stopping college girls to get the I'll do anything routine
-
voyeurism -- window peeping or interrupting lovers lane couples
-
victim re-contacts -- consoling victims who have psychological needs
-
opposite sex strip searches -- touching and/or sex with jail inmates
-
sexual shakedowns -- letting prostitutes go if they perform sex acts
On occasion, one hears about "rogue" officers
who coerce women into having sex on duty, "second rapes" of crime victims, and
school liaison officers involved with juvenile females, but such instances are
rare because of the penalties involved. When police sex cases come to the public
attention, the department reaction is usually to reemphasize the code of ethics.
Such was the case in the 1985 Rathskellar incident in San Francisco, where at a
police academy graduation party, one bashful recruit was handcuffed to a chair,
and a prostitute was brought in to perform oral sex on him.
POLICE SLEEPING ON DUTY
On the night shift, the police car is sometimes
referred to as the "traveling bedroom". In police argot, a "hole" or "coop" is
where sleeping takes place, typically the back room of someplace the officer has
a key to and can engage in safe "cooping". Police officers who attend college
during the day or moonlight at other jobs in order to make a decent living are
often involved in this kind of conduct. Numerous court appearances during the
day can also be a factor, along with the toll of shift
work.
Sleeping on duty, of course, is just an extreme
example of goldbricking, the avoidance of work or performing only the amount
minimally necessary to satisfy superiors. Goldbricking can take many forms: from
ignoring or passing on calls for service to someone else; overlooking suspicious
behavior; or engaging in personal business while on
duty.
POLICE DRINKING & ABUSING DRUGS ON OR OFF DUTY
There are endless opportunities
to drink or take drugs while on duty (e.g., victim interviews, shakedowns,
contraband disposal), and the reasons for it are many: to get high, addiction,
stress, burnout, or alienation from the job. However, even in cases of
recreational usage (which doesn't exist, since officers are never off-duty or
have any of their "own time"), the potential is there for corruption. The
officer must obtain the drugs from some intermediary, involve others in
transactions, and open the door to blackmail, shakedowns, ripoffs, and coverups.
It sets a bad example for public relations. It will affect judgment, and lead to
the greater likelihood of deadly force or traffic accidents. Alcohol and drug
use tends to become a systemic problem; others become involved, either
supporting or condemning the user. Alcohol and drugs tend to be mixed by police
officers because there's more sub cultural support for alcoholism; thus the
abuser covers up the drug use with
alcoholism.
More intriguing is when the police become
sellers or dealers of drugs. One occasionally hears stories of officers selling
drugs at rock concerts. The motivation here appears to be monetary gain and
greed, although there have been some attempts to claim stress or undercover
assignment as a defense. In cases were such officers have been disciplined, plea
bargained, or arbitrated, the courts have not upheld a job stress/drug
connection, although there is some precedent in rulings that job assignment may
be a factor in alcoholism.
With the exception of a few places (like
Hawaii), police officer associations (POAs) have opposed random drug testing.
They especially oppose drug testing after a shooting incident because it taints
the officer. They are not generally opposed to drug testing of applicants or
probationary employees. They do, of course, support strict discipline of any
employee who is involved in dealing
drugs.
POLICE MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This normally involves
jeopardizing an ongoing investigations by "leaking" information to friends,
relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal
suspects or members of their gang. The officer may be unaware that they are even
engaging in this kind of conduct which may involve "pillow talk" in some
instances. Failed raids, for example, are often due to a leak in the department.
In other cases, department resources, such as
computer systems, may be used to produce criminal history reports for "friends"
of the department such as private detectives, consulting firms, or area
employers. Passwords can also slip out, granting access to computer network
information. In rare cases, police resources are put to use in blackmailing
political figures. In general, however, cracking down on secrecy violations has
produced more problems than it has solved. Part of the reason for the current
fragmented condition of American law enforcement rests upon a false sense of
security derived from overdone needs for
secrecy.
O'Connor,
T.R. (Nov. 11, 2005). In Part of web cited, MegaLinks in
Criminal Justice.
