Police Corruption Essay Research Paper Police CorruptionCorruption

Police Corruption Essay, Research Paper

Police Corruption

Corruption has been in the dark closets of American policing since it was first established in the country. When policing was first instituted conditions were not the best, pay was low, and respect was hard to find. These problems coupled with the problem of a lack of laws in which bound the police to accomplish a specific task a specific way, meant they had enough discretion to hang themselves by. There shouldn t be any surprise that corruption hasn t vanished and will most likely never totally go away. It is just like the saying “Absolute power, corrupts absolutely”. It is just human nature to want a better life and get the things you always wanted. Some people, and police are just people, just can t resist the temptation for “easy money”. People have a way of rationalizing situations in their heads, by thinking they are just taking care of their families and paying there bills. This is similar to the job I presently have, working in the Asset protection department for Sears. I see things I would like to have all day long, I know I could take them and no one would ever know, but I don t. I don t do it because there is a fear of getting caught or any kind of punishment like that, I don t do it because of ethics and morals. I, like the majority of people see the opportunity, while a very small percentage of people take advantage of it. It is the same with policing most police are honest and hard working but, there are always some “bad apples” in the bunch. If you knew a way to tell if someone was going to be honest in everything they do, 100% of the time, I think you would at the very least be a billionaire.

Corruption has to be defined in order to look at it closer. The dictionary definition of corruption is: 1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved. 2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor. 3 Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation. 4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid. Would consider a police officer who accepted a free cup of coffee corrupt.. What about an officer accepting money in exchange for not patrolling his/her sector. What would you think of a business person taking that same cup of coffee, would you believe him/her to be corrupt. I think you have to draw a line on what is corrupt and what you believe isn t. I think you have to add into your decision making steps the “offenders” jobs, position, and role in the community. The conclusion I came to is that it definitely does make a difference on the job, position, and role in the community. I believe if the business person had nothing to do with the place in which he/she received the coffee, he/she is not corrupt. He/she just had an act of kindness betrothed on them. Regarding the police officer, he/she should not of accepted the coffee because he/she has a duty to stay impartial to the community. If he/she had to go to a fight later that same day between the person that gave him the coffee and another person, and the person who gave him the coffee was found to be in the right and the other person was in the wrong, what would happen. Most likely the person who was arrested (assuming this person had knowledge that he accepted the coffee) would most likely bring that fact up at the trial. If this situation happened the officer s integrity would be in question, and the jury/judge would have to wonder about it.

Of course accepting coffee is not the main focus of police corruption, its not against the law, nor will it have a overwhelming impact on policing. I do believe the illustration puts into simplistic terms the larger problems which are occurring with policing in large. It all comes down to “Do I take it or don t I take it.” and it is enough. Corruption is like a drug in a way, you start small and just work your way up the ladder, until you fall off.

I said before that accepting a cup of coffee isn t against the law and doesn t make up the corruption which we face today. I am going to describe some recent corruption cases which have been fought.

As identified in a report by the Knapp Commission published over two decades ago it was found there are two different violators. The first are called “Meat eaters” who abundantly misuse their power for personal gain. These individuals go out and seek ways to get money and have the advantage. The second type is called the “Grass eaters” these people are the ones who just accept payoffs and such when the happenstance come their way. For the most part, when you hear of a corruption case you most likely hear about the “Meat eaters”, because they are the ones which get bolder faster with every successful gain.

So what do we do about it. I said before if punishment isn t going to stop police from becoming corrupt, what will. The first step to solving this “disease”, which is slowly eating away at public trust, is to acknowledge the problem. Managers on a whole use three different approaches when failing to deal with corruption. First, it is simply ignore the problem like it was never there. This approach is bad for many reasons. If the police can t police themselves, someone will have to come in and do it for them. Public trust will never be gained. The second approach is a “pollyanna” mentality. This is where the manager discovers and finds the corruption, but downplays its total impact. This approach as with the first approach, will cause someone out