356 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
356 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
September 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
CORRUPTION:
|
||
A CONTINUING CHALLENGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
|
||
|
||
By
|
||
|
||
Otis E. Cooksey
|
||
Major, Military Police Advisor
|
||
U.S. Army Readiness Group
|
||
Fort Sam Houston, Texas
|
||
|
||
|
||
All too frequently, the public's confidence in law
|
||
enforcement is shaken by reports of officers falling victim to
|
||
corruption. While no profession is untouched by corruption, its
|
||
effect on law enforcement is especially damaging. As guardians
|
||
of law and order in a free society, law enforcement officers
|
||
must maintain a consistently high standard of integrity.
|
||
|
||
Combating crime claims many victims from the ranks of law
|
||
enforcement. As criminals become more violent, increasing
|
||
numbers of officers are being killed or injured in the line of
|
||
duty. But increasing numbers of officers are also being lost to
|
||
corruption. The lure of fast money associated with the drug
|
||
trade and other temptations are creating new and potentially
|
||
devastating problems for police departments and law enforcement
|
||
managers across the country.
|
||
|
||
While there is no proven approach to eliminate all
|
||
corruption, there is an emerging understanding that an effective
|
||
strategy must begin with recruitment and continue into training.
|
||
In addition, a procedure should be instituted to investigate
|
||
charges of police misconduct within an agency. To combat
|
||
corruption successfully, police managers must acknowledge that
|
||
it is a serious threat to the organization, and they must work
|
||
to reduce its damaging effects.
|
||
|
||
ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEM
|
||
|
||
The key to any effort aimed at preventing corruption in a
|
||
law enforcement agency is acknowledging that corruption, or the
|
||
potential for corruption, exists. Given the current environment
|
||
wherein drug dealers regularly transact business while carrying
|
||
more cash than an officer makes in a year, law enforcement
|
||
managers can no longer ignore the issue of corruption.
|
||
|
||
For the most part, managers use three general approaches
|
||
when failing to deal with corruption. First, managers attempt
|
||
the "ostrich" approach, denying the existence of a problem. As
|
||
a result of this approach, when the manager is faced with an
|
||
allegation of corruption, there is no effective mechanism in
|
||
place to deal with the problem. This may force the manager into
|
||
courses of action directed by those outside the department.
|
||
|
||
Second, managers try to deal with corruption by taking a
|
||
"pollyanna" approach. Here, the manager acknowledges that
|
||
corruption exists in the organization, but downplays its impact.
|
||
Again, in a situation where the manager fails to respond
|
||
effectively to an incident, the course of action may be directed
|
||
from outside the agency.
|
||
|
||
The third, and potentially most damaging, approach occurs
|
||
when a manager responds to corruption with a "cover-up." Here,
|
||
the manager not only acknowledges corruption in the organization
|
||
but also takes overt action to cover it up. This tactic
|
||
violates the special trust and confidence society places in law
|
||
enforcement and establishes a climate in the agency for
|
||
corruption to flourish.
|
||
|
||
Fortunately, the law enforcement manager can overcome the
|
||
shortfalls of these approaches by taking a more-realistic
|
||
approach to corruption. To respond effectively to corruption,
|
||
the manager must acknowledge the devastating impact it can have
|
||
on an agency. A manager with a realistic appreciation of the
|
||
potential effects of corruption is in a position to develop a
|
||
strategy to deal with corruption internally. This will enable
|
||
the department to minimize the damaging effects of the
|
||
corruption.
|
||
|
||
ESTABLISHING A POLICY
|
||
|
||
Once the manager is committed to preventing corruption, the
|
||
next step is developing a policy before a crisis situation
|
||
develops. While no one policy will meet the needs of all law
|
||
enforcement agencies, any effective policy should cover
|
||
recruitment, training, and investigation. (1)
|
||
|
||
Before an effective strategy can be established, however,
|
||
the manager must decide on a suitable definition of corruption.
|
||
Arthur Niederhoffer defines corruption to include activities
|
||
ranging from the acceptance of a free cup of coffee to the
|
||
actual commission of criminal acts. (2) But, including acts on
|
||
such a wide continuum creates a potential problem for the
|
||
manager. The dilemma is whether to include this whole range of
|
||
activities in the policy or to draw a line on the continuum to
|
||
mark when seemingly innocent acts become corrupt.
|
||
|
||
The problem for those managers who attempt to "draw the
|
||
line" or separate degrees of corruption will be the tendency
|
||
toward interpretation and rationalization. Managers faced with
|
||
complex situations must then try to decide on which side of the
|
||
line an act falls. At the same time, officers serving under
|
||
this policy can rationalize their actions, and given a healthy
|
||
imagination, one can rationalize almost any action.
|
||
|
||
The alternative to defining specific corrupt acts is the
|
||
approach adopted by the International Association of Chiefs of
|
||
Police (IACP), which established a definition of corruption by
|
||
using the intended results of an action, not by the specific
|
||
acts.(3) The IACP defines corruption as acts involving the
|
||
misuse of authority by a police officer in a manner designed to
|
||
produce either personal gain or gain for others. This approach
|
||
simplifies the managers role in identifying corrupt actions and
|
||
provides officers with a simple way of determining where their
|
||
actions fall in relation to agency policy.
|
||
|
||
The Model for Management-Corruption Prevention, prepared by
|
||
the IACP, is an effective tool to aid the law enforcement
|
||
manager in preparing a corruption prevention policy. This model
|
||
policy covers the key aspects of a corruption prevention
|
||
strategy--recruitment, training, and investigation. This model
|
||
can also be tailored to the specific needs of departments,
|
||
regardless of size.
|
||
|
||
PREVENTION STRATEGY
|
||
|
||
Recruitment
|
||
|
||
As Edwin J. Delattre notes in his book, "Character and
|
||
Cops," people do not just happen to wear badges. They wear
|
||
badges because police managers recruit and hire them. (4) It is
|
||
only commonsense, then, that a comprehensive corruption
|
||
prevention policy address recruitment. No agency knowingly
|
||
hires people who will commit corrupt acts in the future. Yet,
|
||
many departments suffer the devastating effects of corruption.
|
||
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department discharges
|
||
approximately 20 officers a year, primarily as a result of
|
||
misconduct. (5)
|
||
|
||
There are, of course, many reasons why police agencies
|
||
should screen recruits and eliminate those who may become
|
||
corrupt. One important factor is money. For all agencies,
|
||
training is an expensive resource that cannot be wasted. If an
|
||
officer completes training and then commits corrupt acts, the
|
||
department faces a potentially more complex and more serious
|
||
problem, mainly because rehabilitation and disciplinary actions
|
||
are more difficult and expensive the longer an individual is
|
||
employed. (6) Law enforcement managers should be alert for
|
||
signs indicating trouble during the recruitment, initial
|
||
training, and probationary periods.
|
||
|
||
An additional concern for departments in the coming years
|
||
is the declining number of qualified recruit applicants.
|
||
Reasons for this include low pay and the deteriorated image of
|
||
law enforcement. Other factors include the increased demand for
|
||
police officers nationwide and a declining trend in the
|
||
population of 18 to 25 year olds. (7)
|
||
|
||
A model that may assist recruitment managers is the
|
||
Standards Manual of the Law Enforcement Agency Accreditation
|
||
Program. This model stresses the following guidelines:
|
||
|
||
* The department should advertise broadly for candidates
|
||
and not restrict recruiting to its own jurisdiction,
|
||
|
||
* The department should have trained personnel conduct a
|
||
written background investigation of every eligible
|
||
candidate. In some cases, the polygraph may be used as
|
||
an investigative tool,
|
||
|
||
* The department should have trained personnel conduct an
|
||
oral interview of each candidate, and also test the
|
||
candidate's general health, physical fitness and agility,
|
||
emotional stability, and psychological fitness,
|
||
|
||
* The department should require all candidates to complete
|
||
at least a 6-month probationary period and entry-level
|
||
training. (8)
|
||
|
||
While this model may not be suitable for every agency, the
|
||
principles described provide a guide for managers to include
|
||
recruitment as part of an anticorruption strategy.
|
||
|
||
Training
|
||
|
||
Training provides the best and most powerful tool for
|
||
making a corruption prevention strategy work. Training
|
||
conducted in an integrated and realistic manner is an effective
|
||
deterrent to corruption for two reasons. First, training
|
||
publicizes agency policy. A policy that is merely written but
|
||
not disseminated widely and regularly is likely to be
|
||
ineffective. Second, training allows officers the opportunity
|
||
to interact and request clarification of standards of conduct in
|
||
terms of specific actions commonly encountered in police work.
|
||
|
||
In most agencies today, training is separated into two
|
||
categories--recruit and inservice. Corruption prevention
|
||
indoctrination logically begins during recruit training and
|
||
should be integrated into as many subject areas as possible by
|
||
the academy instructors. This approach is effective for two
|
||
reasons. First, this will incorporate corruption prevention
|
||
standards into the enforcement of laws and regulations. Second,
|
||
the instructors, usually veteran police officers, have built a
|
||
rapport and have the respect of the students. They, along with
|
||
the chaplain, can establish a solid foundation for the new
|
||
officers to resist corruption.
|
||
|
||
The second phase of the training process is the inservice
|
||
training that officers receive during their careers. Inservice
|
||
training provides a department with a mechanism to reinforce the
|
||
standards of corruption prevention.
|
||
|
||
Law enforcement managers have several options when planning
|
||
inservice training. Many colleges and universities have courses
|
||
in sociology, psychology, religion, and management that will
|
||
reinforce and supplement corruption prevention strategies. In
|
||
addition, expert consultants can be contracted to develop
|
||
corruption prevention training programs.
|
||
|
||
Although academically engaging and easy to institute,
|
||
neither of these approaches may be as effective and complete as
|
||
a program developed within the agency. The Los Angeles
|
||
Sheriff's Department is an example of an agency that decided to
|
||
create its own training program to combat corruption.
|
||
|
||
Using its own personnel and based on an assessment of the
|
||
problem, the sheriff's department designed a program that
|
||
covered the following:
|
||
|
||
* Discussions of different ethical dilemmas, preceded by a
|
||
review of several problem situations,
|
||
|
||
* Issues of concern, an overview of misconduct cases in
|
||
the department,
|
||
|
||
* Standards for decision-making,
|
||
|
||
* Rationalization, and
|
||
|
||
* Situational planning
|
||
|
||
One of the strengths of this program is that it allows open
|
||
discussion of problem areas and standards of performance
|
||
required by the agency. It integrates real-life law enforcement
|
||
issues with the expected standards of conduct.
|
||
|
||
Investigation
|
||
|
||
The last, and possibly most difficult, phase of a
|
||
corruption prevention strategy to implement is the investigation
|
||
of police misconduct. However, an effective investigation
|
||
policy must be established or the other elements of the strategy
|
||
lose their effectiveness. Through objective investigation of
|
||
all possible incidents involving misconduct, a police agency can
|
||
foster a sense of confidence and credibility with the public.
|
||
|
||
Most agencies approach the investigation process by forming
|
||
an internal affairs unit. To assist in this endeavor, the IACP
|
||
developed a model that can be used by police departments. (9)
|
||
This model covers the various issues that should be considered
|
||
when forming this special unit.
|
||
|
||
The first task for the manager is staffing. In large
|
||
departments, several full-time officers may work solely in the
|
||
internal affairs unit. In small departments, the unit may
|
||
consist of one officer, operating on an as-needed basis.
|
||
Another viable alternative for the small department is to pool
|
||
resources with other local agencies as situations require.
|
||
|
||
After the unit is staffed, the manager must decide where to
|
||
place the internal affairs unit in the organization. Ideally,
|
||
the unit will report directly to the chief or ranking officer of
|
||
the agency. The manager should provide clear, comprehensive
|
||
directives outlining the procedures for dealing with complaints
|
||
coming from both inside and outside the agency.
|
||
|
||
The manager should also ensure that the unit investigates
|
||
all complaints quickly and impartially. The internal affairs
|
||
unit does not determine guilt or innocence; it merely gathers
|
||
facts concerning the complaint that should be well-documented.
|
||
This documentation will ultimately benefit both the officer
|
||
involved and the public, in the case of an external complaint.
|
||
|
||
The establishment of an effective internal affairs unit
|
||
reinforces proper police conduct, as well as ensures the public
|
||
of effective and honest police service. The existence of an
|
||
internal affairs unit in the agency structure tells the public
|
||
and police officers that the department is willing to "police
|
||
the police" and supports the overall corruption prevention
|
||
strategy.
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
Corruption can destroy the special bond of trust between
|
||
law enforcement and the public. Citizens in a free society
|
||
expect law enforcement officers to perform their duties with a
|
||
high standard of integrity. When corruption occurs, not only is
|
||
the bond between police and public strained, but citizen
|
||
cooperation, on which law enforcement depends, can be
|
||
jeopardized.
|
||
|
||
In order to combat corruption effectively, law enforcement
|
||
managers must first acknowledge the potential for corruption and
|
||
appreciate the devastating effects it can have on their
|
||
agencies. The key elements of a corruption prevention strategy
|
||
should integrate agency policy into recruitment, training, and
|
||
thorough investigation of all alleged corruption.
|
||
|
||
While corruption has always been a factor in law
|
||
enforcement, the need for effective corruption prevention
|
||
strategies has never been stronger. Today's officers face more
|
||
violent criminals and more potential temptations. Law
|
||
enforcement must present a unified front against an increasingly
|
||
sophisticated criminal element. It is important that managers
|
||
provide today's officers with proper corruption prevention
|
||
skills.
|
||
|
||
|
||
FOOTNOTES
|
||
|
||
(1) John D. Glover, "Maintaining Police Integrity:
|
||
Federal Police of the United States," Police Studies, Spring
|
||
1986, p. 24.
|
||
|
||
(2) Sanford H. Kadish, "Corruption," Encyclopedia of Crime
|
||
and Justice, 1983, p. 1161.
|
||
|
||
(3) International Association of Chiefs of Police, "Models
|
||
for Management--Corruption Prevention," Police Chief, May 1989,
|
||
p. 60.
|
||
|
||
(4) Edwin J. Delattre, Character and Cops (Washington,
|
||
D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
|
||
1989), p. 117.
|
||
|
||
(5) Duane T. Preimsberger and Sherman Block, "Values,
|
||
Standards and Integrity in Law Enforcement: An Emphasis of Job
|
||
Survival," Journal of California Law Enforcement, January 1987,
|
||
p. 10.
|
||
|
||
(6) Supra note 4, p. 119.
|
||
|
||
(7) Bruce W. Cameron, "Where Will We Get New Recruits?"
|
||
Law and Order, September 1989, p. 3.
|
||
|
||
(8) Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
|
||
Agencies, Inc., "Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: The
|
||
Standards Manual of the Law Enforcement Agency Accreditation
|
||
Program," 1984, pp. 31-32.
|
||
|
||
(9) International Association of Chiefs of Police, "The
|
||
Disciplinary Process: Internal Affairs Role," Training Key #
|
||
228, undated.
|
||
|