In the realm of law enforcement, the existence of corruption generates ethical and moral quandaries. It prompts us to reflect on what constitutes corrupt behavior in police work and how such actions violate ethical principles. Is police corruption primarily an administrative concern or a matter of ethics? Instances of police corruption encompass abuse of power, acceptance of bribes, opportunistic theft, extortion, enabling illegal activities, participation in criminal acts, receiving payoffs, planting false evidence, and fabricating evidence.
This paper will discuss various forms of police corruption in relation to its ethical aspect. Police corruption remains a significant challenge for society, affecting both the police sector and the public. The central question surrounding this issue is whether achieving a morally positive outcome justifies the use of ethically, politically, or legally risky methods (Klockars, 1985, 56).
The decision to punish an officer who achieves commendable results but uses dishonest methods presents an ethical dilemma (Newburn, 1999, 11). Corruption typically involves immoral and unethical actions where an individual misuses their position for personal benefit. Police corruption refers to this misconduct, and understanding its significance is essential.
Dempsey and Forst (2010, 230) define police corruption as the inappropriate use of police authority by officers to benefit themselves or their organization. This worldwide problem obstructs efforts to improve public perception and interaction with the police because some officers lack integrity and professionalism.
Police corruption encompasses a range of unlawful actions performed by law enforcement officials, such as abusing authority, accepting bribes, perjury, kickbacks, stealing opportunistically, conducting shakedowns and protecting illegal activities. Additionally, it involves direct participation in criminal acts, making payoffs and falsifying evidence. The main focus of this article is to analyze the various aspects of police corruption and its link to ethical code violations.
In the United States, nonfederal police officers frequently partake in a specific type of corruption called police gratuity. This form entails officers receiving complimentary services or goods like discounts or meals as extra job perks.
Gratuity, which includes financial benefits and rewards, violates the police code of ethics according to DeLattre (1996). This is considered corruption since it puts police officers in a position where they can receive favors both now and in the future. For instance, gratuities can involve an officer soliciting a bribe in exchange for valuable information. Consequently, we observe instances of police officers sifting through crime scenes, warehouses, property rooms, or any accessible location for valuable evidence.
It is evident that this action is a breach of the police code of ethics. The responsibilities of law enforcement officers include serving humanity, preserving lives, and safeguarding property. Police shakedown is a type of corruption in which an officer coerces businesses or owners into paying for their protection. A common example is a bar.
Police officers are responsible for inspecting bars to ensure compliance with liquor regulations. However, in some cases, they may intimidate bar owners by implying they will be in violation of the law unless they receive bribes. Additionally, they may claim to have the power to intercept reports from the police department. In certain cities like San Francisco, police officers may offer increased protection against hate crimes towards the LGBTQ+ community for an additional fee.
Moonlight officers in New Orleans frequently earn extra money in liquor establishments by turning a blind eye to more significant offenses like prostitution or illegal drug trade. Shakedowns are also common in strip bars, illegal gambling, prostitution rings, drug dealing, and even construction projects. All of these activities go against societal and community values and contribute to the persistence of social vices within the community.
Police officers who engage in corrupt behavior violate the police code of ethics, which strictly prohibits allowing personal biases or relationships to influence decision-making. The code emphasizes the importance of upholding the law with integrity, treating individuals courteously, and avoiding unnecessary force or violence. Police perjury is a form of corruption where an officer may purposely omit information during criminal prosecutions, resulting in potential miscarriages of justice by either falsely incriminating innocent individuals or setting free those who are guilty.
In certain situations, the judge may feign belief in police officers who are blatantly lying. This tends to occur when influential and powerful individuals in society are involved in criminal cases. Once the case is won, the police, prosecutor, defense lawyer, and judge all receive recognition for their roles. It is often observed that well-intentioned police officers commit perjury because they genuinely believe that a guilty defendant will only be convicted if they give a false testimony.
However, does this imply that achieving good outcomes justifies using unethical methods? These actions are both unethical and entirely immoral as they go against the police code of ethics. The code specifies that police officers must endeavor to maintain justice and enforce the law (Kleinig, 1996). Furthermore, another form of corruption is evident in police profanity, where officers employ offensive and vulgar language towards the public. Effective communication skills are crucial in carrying out police responsibilities.
Police training institutions teach officers fundamental skills, such as developing a commanding presence and using authoritative tones of voice. However, it is crucial for these officers to refrain from using certain types of language, including words related to bodily functions, sexual acts, or religious implications. The purpose behind the use of abusive language often aims at getting the attention of uncooperative individuals and establishing a dominant-submissive dynamic. Additionally, this kind of language can align with specific groups like offenders or the police subculture while demeaning and stigmatizing those outside these groups. Furthermore, it can be employed to discredit individuals or undermine defenses like alibis. These actions are essential in moving away from bias towards impartiality, particularly in cases involving racial classifications (Madsen and Shafritz, 1991).
All individuals should be treated equally and receive fair treatment from police officers, irrespective of their race, gender, culture, status, or political standing. Using offensive language goes against the ethical code followed by police officers. It is ideal for police officers to remain composed in situations involving danger, criticism, or ridicule in order to demonstrate self-control and respect for others (Kleinig, 1996). Additionally, sleeping while on duty is considered a form of corruption within law enforcement and police vehicles are sometimes jokingly referred to as “traveling bedrooms.”
Police officers with daytime responsibilities such as attending college or working part-time jobs often have difficulty fulfilling their night policing duties effectively. Fatigue may lead them to prioritize sleep over their obligations (DeLattre, 1996). Sleeping on duty is a way of evading work or doing only the bare minimum to satisfy superiors, which contradicts the ethical standards outlined in the police code of conduct and should not be accepted.
Heffernan and Stroup (1985) argue that it is unethical for police officers to be fully compensated for minimal work, as this unfairly rewards them for work they did not do. They also consider engaging in sexual activities while on duty as a type of corruption. Additionally, Madsen and Shafritz (1991) mention that some women are naturally drawn to policemen.
Despite instructions to cease or pull over, some individuals persist in greeting law enforcement officers due to their infatuation with them. This infatuation can lead to various scenarios where officers exploit their position. For instance, when a woman is caught committing an offense, the officer may arrange a rendezvous and engage in sexual activity as a means of avoiding charges. Other situations involve traffic stops used to closely observe or gather information about women. There are also instances of voyeurism such as peeping through windows or intruding on couples in secluded areas.
In addition, police officers target college girls for sexual purposes and perform strip searches on individuals of the opposite sex, involving touching and/or engaging in sexual acts with incarcerated people. Furthermore, they subject prostitutes to sexual activities instead of holding them accountable for their actions (Kleinig, 1996). The most deplorable act among all these is when police officers manipulate women into having sexual relations with them.
Engaging in sexual activity with a person other than your spouse, especially at the workplace, is morally unacceptable. Additionally, law enforcement officers who employ sex as a form of bribery violate ethical standards within the legal system and societal norms. Moreover, the misuse of confidential information by police officers constitutes corruption that endangers ongoing and crucial investigations.
Some police officers engage in the practice of sharing important information with various individuals, including the press, criminal suspects, family members, relatives, or even their gang associates. They do this in exchange for some sort of benefit or recognition. In some cases, these officers may unknowingly leak information during casual conversations with their partners in crime. However, there are also police officers who work within the justice department and utilize resources like computer systems to access valuable case-related information. This can involve searching for the criminal history of accomplices and seeking assistance from consulting firms, private detectives, or local employers (Madsen and Shafritz, 1991).
These actions are contradictory to the police code of ethics and also violate the law that ensures justice in any system. However, this raises the question about ethics and morality. Conclusion: The heart of this issue of corruption revolves around whether a morally righteous outcome justifies the utilization of ethically or politically risky methods to attain it (Klockars, 1985, 56). When deciding whether to punish an officer who has achieved admirable results but resorted to unlawful methods due to perceiving no alternatives, we are confronted with an ethical dilemma (Newburn, 1999, 11).
This paper highlights that policing involves complex ethical problems (Newburn, 1999, 13). All criminal justice professions have codes of ethics, values, conducts, and standards that govern their policing duties. To fully comprehend police corruption, one must not only consider the internal conflicts within the justice system but also its external ethical and moral implications in society. References: DeLattre, E.
(1996). Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Dempsey, J.
S. and Forst, L. S. (2010).
An Introduction to Policing (5th ed.) by Heffernan, W. is a book that provides an overview of the field of policing. It is published by Delmar in Clifton, NY.
and Stroup, T. (1985). Police Ethics: Hard Choices in Law Enforcement. New York, NY: John Jay Press.
Kleinig, J. (1996): Police Ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge UP. Klockars, C.
B. (1985). The Dirty Harry Problem. In Moral Issues in Police Work F.
A. Elliston and M. Feldberg are the editors of this book.
Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Allanheld.Madsen, P. and Shafritz, J. (1991).
The book “Essentials of Government Ethics” was published in New York, NY by Penguin. Another book by T. Newburn was also published in 1999.
The article “Understanding and Preventing Police Corruption: Lessons from The Literature” can be found at https://www.popcenter.org/problems/street_prostitution/PDFs/Newburn_1999.pdf.
