Police Corruption

WHEN POLICE officers intentionally misuse their authority for personal aims, it is termed police corruption. It is a problem that has occurred since modern policing evolved, and it is international in scope. While all criminal experts agree that it is an important social problem, there is less agreement about the extent of corruption.

Some individuals see the majority of police as corrupt, while others believe that only a handful of officers engage in corrupt activities. Three reasons limit our ability to determine the extent of police corruption: conceptual factors, methodological issues, and cultural factors.

In conceptual factors, there is great disparity in the ways that experts define police corruption. Some scholars follow strict definitions of corruption[Page 618] and suggest that any time a police officer violates the rules of her department, corruption has occurred.

The problem is that the rules police are expected to follow are quite extensive. Rulebooks for police departments in major cities are up to one foot thick. There are rules about when to wear a hat, how to get out of a car, how to question suspects, whether to accept a free cup of coffee, among thousands of others. In the end, it is virtually impossible to follow all of the rules all of the time. So, are they committing misconduct when they violate department rules?

At the other end of the continuum are those scholars who define police corruption in rather liberal terms. Members of this camp would allow the police to commit an assortment of transgressions, so long as no one is directly or unfairly harmed by their actions. After all, in most jobs individuals commit what is referred to as occupational deviance. People take longer breaks than they are supposed to; workers take things from work that are supposed to stay at work; sick leave and vacation time are routinely used inappropriately; restaurant workers often take food without paying for it—what is wrong with police officers engaging in similar acts? Thus, some conceptual confusion exists regarding what should be characterized as misconduct and what should be characterized as just a part of the job.

Methodological issues exist that also make it difficult to determine the precise extent of police corruption. It is essentially impossible to study police corruption with traditional research strategies. Researchers have tried to survey police officers regarding their experiences with corruption. These studies have proven to be difficult: Police officers are particularly distrustful of surveys, and when asked about misconduct, honest officers are offended and dishonest officers are not going to be open with researchers. Known as the “Thin Blue Line,” it is difficult for researchers to cross over into the world of policing and get access to their activities, lives, and routines when it comes to police corruption.

Similar problems arise when researchers conduct field studies with police officers. Known as the Hawthorne Effect, officers will alter their behavior in the presence of researchers. Researchers, then, are not able to observe true police work. Rather, they are being presented with a staged production that will bias any possibility of obtaining an accurate portrayal of life in the streets.

...