Conclusions about Police Corruption and Misconduct - Essay Sample

Police corruption and misconduct has been in the human society for a very long time, and even today it is as pervasive as it was in the past decades (Newham, 2000). Police corruption refers to the misuse of police power for personal gains; profits and other material benefits resulting from the authority of a police officer. On the other hand, Police misconduct is inappropriate or somewhat deliberate wrongdoing. Many departments have police who commit misconduct and corruption deeds again and again, and several police departments, nonetheless, turn out to be corrupt departments.

Police corruption and misconduct result from officers discretion, low managerial visibility, low public visibility, and administrative secrecy. Additionally, the status problem where police receive poor pays relative to the power they have, peer group culture, community structure and degree of anomie, temptation, and the organizational characteristics are the other causes of misconduct and corruption among police officers. The main types of police misconduct include the use of lethal or physical force, verbal and physical provocation, biased arrest, and particular law implementation (Prenzler, 2009). According to the general rule, there are three categories of police misconduct; civil misconduct, criminal misconduct, and procedural misconduct (Klockars, Ivkovic, & Haberfeld, 2003).

The term police corruption can describe various activities such as violence and brutality, bribery, racism, evidence destruction, and nepotism or favoritism (Prenzler, 2009). Police corruption can be in the type of the corruption of authority where a police officer receives material gains by use of their position without a violation of the law per se. Again it can be in the type of kickbacks where the officer gets services, goods or money for referring business to particular companies or individuals (Landau, 1994). Police can act in protection of illegal actions where they safeguard those engaged in unlawful activities like drugs, prostitution, and pornography and promote that business. Opportunistic theft is another type of police corruption, and here the officers can engage in rolling (stealing from the arrestees), stealing from crime victims, traffic accidents victims, and possessions of dead citizens. Police officers can also get shakedowns where suspects bribe them for not following the case. Internal payoffs are another type of corruption, and here the officers buy, barter, and sell holidays, promotions, and shift allocations.

How to Eliminate Police Corruption and Misconduct

Many strategies are put in place to control police corruption and misconduct. They are under four general headings; anti-corruption strategies, human resource management, internal controls, along with the external environment and the external controls (Prenzler, 2009). The police human resource department should ensure that it conducts full screening of the officers during recruitment and as well begin seeking out even those with higher education. The hiring department should also train the officers about ethics continuously because ethics contributes to an image of law enforcement (Ivkovic, 2005). Again the police officers need to be proud of their profession, and this will minimize corruption.

Police management responsibility is another area that the human resource department needs to consider. Increasing the levels of supervision is helpful in controlling misconduct and corruption. There is also a need to give the police officers a better pay because their low income and the high expenditures push them to corruption. Concerning the anti-corruption policies, the police department must change its policies first so that the practices of the officers also change in line with the new policies (Ede, Homel, & Prenzler, 2002). The anti-corruption department should develop policies that must codify the expected behavior standards of the staff and implement police governing codes and compliance.

The category of internal controls deals with both punitive and preventive control. Punitive control focuses on deterring corruption and malpractice through increased attention on the detection, investigation, and punishment of the officers wrongdoing. In detecting the violation of the law by the officers, the citizens, police officers and probing of the activities of the police can be a good source of intelligence (Ferdik, Rojek, & Alpert, 2013). Preventive controls are the policies aimed at changing an organization to prevent the officers from committing corrupt practices such as internal accountability, close supervision, and elimination of procedures that promote corruption (Bertram Spector, 2011).

Other than implementing strategies to change the organization, the police department can also apply policies that aim at improving the environment to tackle police corruption and misconduct. The two environments that are of great importance here are the task and political environments. Policies need to be put in place to protect the police from corrupters and encourage them to be more vigilant and report corrupt acts whenever they notice them.

Communication about Police Corruption and Misconduct to Stakeholders

The stakeholders get to know about police corruption and misconduct through the complaints filed by the community, the state police departments, or the public reports like the civil lawsuits (Ede, Homel, & Prenzler, 2002). It is through the investigation of these complaints that the truth comes into light and the corrective measures taken. After the study of the case, a comprehensive report that includes the preliminary result of sustained or not sustained, unfounded or exonerated helps the stakeholders know the type of officers they are dealing with, and the enable them to make the right decisions towards the disciplinary action. The interested parties can also take appeals and grievances.

In conclusion, I would recommend that the consequences of corruption and misconduct be more specific and have discipline designed to discourage officers from future misconduct. Additionally, there is a need to make short the period from the complaint to its resolution, monitor and track officers conduct, and emphasize on the accountability of the supervisors for their subordinates actions.

References

Bertram Spector. (2011). Negotiating Peace and Confronting Corruption. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Ede, A., Homel, R., and Prenzler, T. (2002). Reducing complaints against police and preventing misconduct: A diagnostic study using hot spot analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(1), 27-42.

Ferdik, F. V., Rojek, J., and Alpert, G. P. (2013). Citizen oversight in the United States and Canada: An overview. Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 104-116.

Ivkovic, S. K. (2005). Fallen blue knights: Controlling police corruption. Oxford University Press.Klockars, C. B., Ivkovic, S. K., and Haberfeld, M. R. (2003). The contours of police integrity. Sage Publications.

Landau, T. (1994). Public complaints against the police: A view from complainants Toronto: Butterworths.

Newham, G. (2000). Towards understanding and combating police corruption. Crime and Conflict, 19, 21-25.

Prenzler, T. (2009). Police corruption and misconduct. Ethics and Accountability in Criminal Justice: Towards a Universal Standard, 45.

Prenzler, Tim. (2009). Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity.

London: CRC Press.