Police Corruption 1

Running Head: TYPOLOGY OF POLICE CORRUPTION

The Typology of Police Corruption Mary Kleber Applied Criminal Justice Ethics CJ340 August 31, 2010

Police Corruption 2

Introduction Corruption of police has long been a serious issue. Some believe that it begins when a police officer accepts gratuities. It is definitely a risky step for the police officer to accept gratuity because the implication of accepting even the smallest of gratuities is that the officer has demonstrated their willingness to accept being corrupted, and has detached from any rational motive to object to further serious activities (Coleman, 2004). The question becomes then to what length is that officer willing to let themselves to be corrupted. The Slippery Slope Hypothesis While a police officer accepting such gratuities as a free cup of coffee may not be seriously wrong, it is wrong all the same. The only difference between an officer accepting a cup of coffee and a doughnut as opposed to accepting a bribe is the level of wrongness involved in the exchange (Coleman, 2004).There are some that contend police officers can comprehend the difference between accepting a free cup of coffee and taking a bribe. The fact that a police officer is ready to accept a free cup of coffee does not necessarily mean he or she is ready to accept a bribe to overlook a crime or provide protection to illegal business in exchange for money (Research Report on Trends in Police Corruption, 2002). However as with numerous social science disciplines, theories about exactly how police corruption begins and where it ends has been in question for many years. Three theories that tend to provide answers in the filed of criminal justice are the society at large hypothesis, the structural or affiliation

Police Corruption 3

hypothesis and the rotten apple hypothesis (Delattre, 2006). Every one of these hypotheses offers a different perspective but each possesses merit in its claim.

Society-at-Large Hypothesis According to the society-at-large hypothesis, police become corrupt due to external forces and have become accustomed to corruption as being the norm. O. W Wilson asserts that societal structure is to blame for police corruption. Wilson explains that in previous generations police were paid poorly and the richer citizens of society looked at the police the way they did their servants and gave them gifts and gratuities. Restaurants and local businesses would cozy up to the beat cops in expectation of better protection in return for monetary payment, a free or reduced meal or for alcohol. When a member of the community gives an officer any type of gratuity in exchange for a small favor or out of pure hospitality, that person has played a part in the problem of corruption by creating an opening for the officer to then possibly consent to a larger amount of money or goods and services in return for even bigger favors (Delattre, 2006). The Structural or Affiliation Hypothesis The structural or affiliation hypothesis, offered by Arthur Niederhoffer maintains that police officers coached into corruption by witnessing the corrupt behavior of their superiors and other veterans of the force. Although officers begin their careers being corrupt, the unlawful behavior and response to that behavior creates the cycle of corruption. The behavior is taught to rookies, the approval of the behavior by veterans

Police Corruption 4

that were taught the same by others that came before them, and if left to continue, the cycle will be repeated later on by the rookie with new officers. There is another significant component to this hypothesis, they idea that secrecy provides a breeding ground for corruption to flourish. Within this hypothesis as long as departments are not open to external reviews, there will be no one with the resources required to put an end to the cycle. Meaning that new officers witnessing the corruption will see it as the norm, that it is accepted or ignored and then will engage in the same behavior (Delattre, 2006). The Rotten-Apple Hypothesis The rotten-apple hypothesis is a widely accepted theory. It contends that corrupt officers had a propensity for corruption prior to becoming a police officer. Those in support this theory believe corrupt individuals are the result of "indiscriminate hiring, inadequate training and poor supervision" that in turn eats away at the standards of personnel and if left unchecked it inevitably results in pervasive corruption in a department (Delattre, 2006, p.85). The implication is that these individuals are just bad to the core and have slipped through the cracks of pre-employment. Conclusion These theories, when in practice, do not function separate from each other. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive. When dealing with corruption to be effective one must not be blind to the possible merits and eventual pitfalls that each theory provides. The solution to stopping the cycle of corruption is likely to lie in the mixture of each theory.

Police Corruption 5

Reference Coleman, S. (2004). When police should say "no!" to gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics, 23. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.questia.com Delattre, E. J. (2006). Character and cops: Ethics in policing, (5 ed.). Washington: AEI Press. Lynch, P. (2002). Research report on trends in police corruption. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from http://www.google.com