Community Policing Corruption Essay

In today’s society, the amount of crime that occurs can be quite difficult to deal with and responsibility ends up falling on police to curtail it. Unfortunately, the infectious nature of crime often drags these assigned â€Å"stoppers† into the same mud that they are trying to prevent others from falling into. When officers abuse their legally sanctioned position of authority, it is known as police corruption. It is a persistent problem that is more significant in a criminal sense than the average person committing a crime because it is happening by a representative/protector of the law. Since police are not judiciaries, they do not determine who is guilty and thus undermine the law system when they do these crimes. Also, it is important to note that police corruption is not the same as an ordinary instance of crime. To elaborate, â€Å"Police corruption is an illegal use of organizational power for personal gain. The personal nature of the gain distinguishes corruption from brutality, perjury, illegal search, or any other law violations committed in the pursuit of such legitimate organizational goals as fighting crime. The organizational nature of the power used illegally excludes many crimes committed by policemen, such as burglary committed by a city police officer in his suburban town of residence in which he has no contact with the local police. That particular burglary would be merely a crime. A burglary committed by a police officer in his own police jurisdiction, under the protection of his colleagues or aided by his organizational knowledge of his colleagues’ practices, would be both a crime and an act of police corruption.† (Sherman, 31). As one can see, police corruption is a serious problem as it is almost always involves an associated act of crime. There is no room for this behaviour in fair environments and it cannot occur if society wishes to advance. Ultimately, police corruption cannot coexist with the concept of community policing because it is unethical and morally wrong, it is contrary to Robert Peel’s nine principles of policing and undermines effectiveness, and it offers no sense of accountability to the government and to the public. There is no logical way to justify corrupt actions by the police. Any time it occurs, it involves the â€Å"abuse of a legally sanctioned position of authority—in other words, the status of the police officer makes the crime possible. It is this abuse of a ‘sanctioned and sacred’ social position that makes police corruption so dangerous. It is the ultimate social inversion—the cops become criminals. (Police Corruption)† Instead of helping to fight crime, they end up contributing to the problem through means that are only available to them because of their sworn duties as protectors of the community. When corruption is revealed to the public, the police lose the confidence and trust that allows them to function and be legitimate. Corrupt acts are completely immoral as they are motivated by personal gain which demonstrates selfishness and a disregard of the well-being of society. The detrimental aspects of police misconduct cannot be overstated as they immediately threaten the possibility of effective police-community relationships. â€Å"In terms of public trust for law enforcement, recent polls show that only 56 percent of people rated the police as having a high or very high ethical standard as compared with 84 percent for nurses. Over the past few decades, great strides have occurred in the law enforcement profession. To begin with, many police agencies have avoided hiring candidates who have low ethical standards and have identified those onboard employees early in their careers who might compromise the department’s integrity. In addition, research has discovered new methods of testing candidates for their psychological propensity to act ethically. However, unethical conduct by the nation’s police officers continues to occur in departments large and small. (Martin). Clearly, society has made some strides toward ensuring ethical and rational behaviour in the police force but it is impossible to root it out all the way to the individual level. For community policing to be effective, a high percentage of officers must be able to see the difference between right and wrong and take appropriate action. Recent studies offer some understanding of the phenomenon in the hope of rooting out this behavior that serves to undermine the overall legitimacy of law enforcement. Theories on the role of society in law enforcement, the negative influence of an officer’s department, and a person’s own natural tendency to engage in unethical behavior have been offered as potential explanations. While some may argue that the â€Å"rotten apple† theory is the best explanation for this problem, the vast amount of evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Deviance rarely persists in an isolated environment but it thrives when it is adopted by an entity such as a department. To explain, â€Å"If we scan these activities then it must be plain that we are no longer dealing with individuals seeking solely personal gain but with group behaviour rooted in established arrangements. Police officers have to be initiated into these practises, rationalisations have to be produced to accept them, supervisors have to collude or turn a blind eye, justifications have to be sought to continue them, and organizations have either in some way to condone or encourage these activities — or else fail to tackle them. This is social behaviour, conducted in groups within organizations, that is powerful enough to override the officer’s oath of office, personal conscience, departmental regulations and criminal laws (European Committee, 68).† For all of these events to occur, it is evident that a multitude of people inside the organization must collaborate and therefore it is rarely an isolated case of corruption. Corruption is highly contagious and this is illustrated well through theories such as the â€Å"slippery slope† and â€Å"grass vs meat eaters† This also explains why corruption is usually concentrated in certain precincts or areas instead of being dispersed. Sir Robert Peel was credited with the concept that the police depend on citizen cooperation in providing services in a democratic society. â€Å"Peel envisioned a strong connection between the police and the community (Police Corruption)†. Unfortunately, the existence of police corruption is contrary to all nine of his principles. The police’s basic mission is to prevent crime and disorder, which they only contribute to if they are corrupt. They rely on the public approval of their actions, which cannot happen in a just society (â€Å"community tolerance, or even support, for police corruption can facilitate a department’s becoming corrupt [Sherman, 32]). Corrupt police officers do not cooperate with the public; they avoid contact as they do not want to reveal their illicit nature. Since corrupt officers are aware of their actions, they might have improper judgement and use physical force. They fail to demonstrate absolutely impartial service by attempting to manipulate public opinion, do not become â€Å"one† with the public, they usurp the power of the judiciary, and sacrifice efficiency for personal gain by not devoting all of their effort to reducing crime and disorder. These corrupt officers also undermine effectiveness as they do not use their time as well as they should be, show only self-concern and indifference to the morality of the situation, and abuse resources. â€Å"The legal authority of police departments and the nature of law violations in their jurisdiction provide organizational resources that can be exploited for personal gain. The nature of these resources varies greatly among and within police departments according to the nature of police tasks performed and the social characteristics of the police task environment. A police department that is a corrupt organization can exploit the resources for internal profit. In all cases, exploitation of these resources for personal gain is an inversion of the formal goals of the organization. (Sherman, 38). Depending on exactly what type of resources the organization deals with, they may or may not be suitable for exploitation. Federal drug enforcement entities constantly deal with opportunities to make a lot of illicit profit whereas Secret Services almost never has chances to make illicit gains at all. In many situations, police may lose some or all of their accountability to the public or government if they do not act with the appropriate intentions. Accountability is a vital element of not just community policing but policing in general. If the police are to achieve their goal which should be lawfulness and legitimacy, they require effective accountability procedures. â€Å"Lawfulness and legitimacy, in turn, are essential if the police are to achieve their goals of reducing crime and disorder, enhancing the quality of neighborhood life, and serving community needs. A lack of legitimacy inhibits the development of working partnerships that are an essential ingredient in community policing and problem oriented policing. Contrary to the popular view that effective crime control and respect for constitutional principles are competing values in policing, experts today increasingly recognize that lawful conduct and accountability are essential for crime-fighting. (Walker, 1). While it is apparent that lawfulness and legitimacy must be upheld in order to serve the community, a fundamental principal of a democratic society that the police should be held accountable for their actions. This includes choosing what actions they take and how they perform. This is especially true in post-conflict environments where police forces are viewed as brutal, corrupt, and unfair. In order to maintain a healthy relationship, a â€Å"liberal society must be maintained, complaints about the police must be addressed, and police themselves must be protected by disgruntled acts by the community† (Accountability and Police). At the same time, police must keep a healthy distance to avoid excessive personal interaction which leads to preferential treatment, discretion, and favouritism. Furthermore, it is important to note that, â€Å"The accountability of police to the public is undermined when charges are often dropped while officers under investigation are usually suspended with pay. In other words, there is no real certainty of punishment and this de-legitimizes any notion of public accountability and respect for the law (Police Corruption). In the eyes of the public, it is already bad enough that the officer are taking advantage of their position of authority but to have them face virtually no consequences is beyond demoralizing. In order for community policing to exist, the public must be confident in the fact that the police are not taking advantage of their position and are accountable in and out of service. In conclusion, because police corruption is unethical and morally wrong, violates all of Robert Peel’s principles, and shows a complete disregard of the notion of accountability, it is impossible to coincide with effective community policing. Police corruption is the illegal use of organizational power for personal gain and unfortunately a still a common occurrence in modern society. It is crucial for the police, as protectors of society, to not allow themselves to stoop so low. The community has to be able to know that no matter what police might have to deal with, they will remain pure and free of corruption in order to begin forming positive relationships. Methods of containing corruption include abolishing existing precedures that encourage corruption, letting go of any member that demonstrates corrupt tendencies, requiring a certain level of accountability, and many other steps. Organizations such as the Special Investigations Unit have made strides in reducing corruption however it is not nearly enough. If corruption is controlled to a point where it no longer has a detrimental impact to society, community policing can have enough room to develop. â€Å"Preventing corruption completely is a tall order. However, steps can be taken to reduce it significantly. There are a few fundamental ideas that can be implemented that can, by their very nature, curb corruption. The three areas that need attention are the officer training, personal characters, and the incentives program. The first step is to hire police officers of good character. Stricter screening methods need to be implemented to decrease the chance that a potential hire will become corrupt. Once an officer is hired, the department should do all it can to promote ethics on the job. The department must understand that the citizens trust the police to be ethical, and a breach of that trust is unjust. Further, it is not practical to act unethically. People eye the police and their behavior constantly. Corruption in the force makes it easier for a citizen to rationalize acting unlawfully, which just creates more work for the police. If a police officer, who is allegedly the pillar of the law, can defy it, why cannot the citizens who pay for the police services? (White) A corrupt police officer cannot very well express effectively why citizens should obey the law, for he has no consistency and thus no credibility. Works Cited Sherman, Lawrence W. Scandal and Reform: Controlling Police Corruption. N.p.: University of California, 1978. Print. Police Powers and Accountability in a Democratic Society. N.p.: 2000. Google Books. Web. . Walker, Samuel. â€Å"Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs.† National Institute of Justice Police Planning (2006): 1-35. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. . White, Stuart A. â€Å"Controlling Police Corruption.† Stanford University. N.p., 4 June 1994. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. . Martin, Rich M.S. â€Å"Police Corruption: An Analytical Look Into Police Ethics.† FBI. N.p., May 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. .