Corruption in Law Enforcement Agencies - Essay Example

Corruption in Law Enforcement Agencies Inappropriate conduct within law enforcement agencies can be explained predominantly by unethical behavior alone. A person allows themselves to become corrupt. It is less a learned or inherited phenomenon than one of opportunity and a misuse of authority. Corruption within the ranks of those entrusted with powers over the populace cannot be explained simply by claiming a certain percentage of people are just born with a malady of some sort that compels them to deviance. Sociologists have attempted to understand why ‘good cops go bad’ by exploring how genetic and psychological variables influence a persons judgment skills. Theories derived from such studies provide a compelling argument for unethical actions. However, the fact is that all persons have an understanding of right and wrong with the exception of those exhibiting psychopathic tendencies. Of course, these individuals wouldn’t pass a psychological exam required for entrance into any law enforcement agency anyway. Presumably, the very job description of law personnel is enforcing unethical actions. They are fully aware when they cross that line. Corruption, especially among those in law enforcement positions is the result of unethical behavior. This discussion will present the sociologist argument, that some are predisposed to lawless, immoral conduct then show that the opportunity to take advantage of a given situation combined with the knowledge that they are generally above suspicion is the more reasonable explanation for corruption. The rationale behind an individual’s deviant actions, including individuals employed on the nation’s police forces, has been and remains a complex and highly debated subject. Three areas of research which include biological, sociological and psychological studies have attempted to resolve this issue. No one area of study has been able to explain the exact reason why people behave in a corrupt or deviant manner. Because of this, screening for predisposed conditions to deviant behavior on the police force is difficult to determine or justify as tests may or may not accurately identify those individuals more likely to engage in criminal activity as a member of the police when given the opportunity. However, sociologists theories have not been disproved as often as the psychologists’ and biologists’ theories, because their experiments are too hard to define and no one definition for deviance is agreed upon by all experimenters” (Pfuhl, 1980: 40). Among the biological and physiological explanations for crime is the Behavior Genetics Theory which postulates a biological explanation for crime. While the genetic make-up of an individual does not induce any specific actions, anti-social behavior can be facilitated by neurotransmitters in the brain and hormonal imbalances which generate tendencies to act in a particular way. Abnormal serotonin levels have been shown to be an origin of criminal behaviors of all types of crime because an individual lacks the natural ability to control their impulsive thoughts thereby acting upon them. Everyone has thoughts they would never act upon. Those with this abnormality tend to act first and think later. Evidence compiled from studies has supported another link between a particular inherited mutant gene and criminal behavior. Instead of high serotonin levels the neurotransmitters in the brain, because of genetic abnormalities, may produce low levels of an enzyme which causes interruptions in signals within the nervous system and the brain. “Urinalysis of subjects in the Dutch study, all of whom was related and demonstrated aggressive and antisocial behavior, showed abnormal levels of metabolic products associated with the enzyme” (Vinces, 1996). These persons did not have the ability to produce this enzyme. This genetic defect may be at least a contributing factor leading to deviant behaviors. Biological theories attempting to locate the factors involved in human deviance are difficult to prove but the studies corroborate somewhat with anthropological researches such those conducted by Lange and Rosenoff et al among others. These early experiments and many that followed have endeavored to prove the biological theory by examining twins who had been convicted of criminal activities in an effort to understand the genetic connection, if any. The studies do show that if one twin commits crimes, the other has a higher probability to also engage in criminal behavior than does the general public (Rosanoff et al, 1934). These studies did not take into account the fact that the twins also grew up in similar environments which sociologists argue is the root of the issue. The biological contention is that people who exhibit delinquent behaviors are genetically inferior. Sociologists generally find disagreement with the genetics theory for explaining criminal tendencies. They argue that an individual’s deviant actions result from feelings of inferiority learned from events occurring at an early age and cannot be predicted by examining inherited characteristics. “Sociologists learn from culture’s influences, other than a biological or psychological bias” (Pfuhl, 1980: 50). Sociologists are not concerned with behavior patterns exhibited by particular persons but indicate the roots of deviant behavior can be traced to cultural experiences that share a commonality. According to the sociological explanation for deviant behavior, all persons including police officers developed their propensity towards corrupt behaviors by way of counter-productive childhood experiences. Current research has shown that if a child lacks proper supervision or experiences other deficiencies, they are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior during childhood as well as later in life. Poverty, single parent homes, abusive households or a combination of these situations causes a variety of social adaptive problems for children, the consequences of which follow them into adulthood. “If a person is living in a lower class, single-parent environment, they are then at a real disadvantage. It may be because they do not feel they are good enough to belong in the realms of society” (Lemert, 1972: 59). It is very possible that corrupt cops did not interact well or often with other children and experienced patterns of stress during childhood such as a persistent lack of self-esteem and constant antagonistic treatment. Not surprisingly, child neglect and/or abuse causing emotional or physical trauma retards the normal social development of a child. The problem is widespread which gives at least one explanation for a high rate of crime within the public realm and in police departments. “Over one million of the youth in America are subjected to abuse a year” (Lemert, 1972: 48). The Differential Association Theory first postulated by Edwin Sutherland explained that behavior, whether criminal in nature or not, is learned. He theorized that criminal behavior was not a genetic abnormality therefore opposing the conclusions drawn by pathological and biological theorists.  According to the Differential Association Theory, criminal behavior is learned via communications and experiences acquired from personal relationships. The degree of deviant behavior varies because people absorb information differently whether on the conscious or unconscious level. This theory explains why crime is higher in the inner cities where crime is rationalized more so than in the suburbs, as well as presenting a concern regarding the dangers to police officers working in close association with or against drug cartels on a regular basis. This rationalization can be contagious especially among impressionable youths (Cressey, 1979: 458-460). Sociological and social structure crime theories such as the General Strain Theory, however, give insight to reasoning’s for multiple types of criminal behaviors. According to Robert Agnew’s research which expanded the general strain theory, police officers may seek retribution when they perceive they are being paid or otherwise treated unfairly, a possible motive for crime (Agnew, 1985: 152). According to Agnew, people strive for three main goals in whatever field they are employed. The first, not surprisingly, is monetary gain. Money, or the lack of, causes strain which leads to delinquent behavior in otherwise law abiding citizens. The second is a need for respect and a feeling of status, a factor especially present in males. Personality characteristics which are often associated with masculine traits are frequently exhibited through delinquent behavior. If an individual cannot achieve this perceived status legitimately, they may resort to criminal activities. The third goal is autonomy which refers to individual empowerment, a valued asset within any society. Police officers experience low pay and many feel a lack of respect and are frustrated that their value to society is unfulfilled because the drug war only heightens despite their best efforts. Although strain generated by a perceived lack of autonomy has been shown to mainly affect the lower classes and adolescents, because this is a perception of position in a society or in an organization, it is also linked to law enforcement crimes as well. Agnew suggests that “the need for autonomy can result in delinquency and crime, as the individual tried to assert autonomy, achieve autonomy, and relieve frustration against those who have denied the individual autonomy” (Agnew, 1994: 425-426). When presented with an open opportunity to make a gain, people, depending on their social make-up, decide on whether to commit a crime. Are they also genetically predisposed, were they taught through experience that crime is acceptable, are they seeking retribution or wish to artificially empower themselves because of perceived deficiencies within their lives? Biological, learned and many types of social considerations must be taken into account when theorizing why a particular person committed a crime. Whether or not a person is genetically predisposed to commit crime, what type of social and psychological developmental factors are present which encourage deviance must be all be examined on an in-depth, case-by-case basis to determine the reasoning. One or all theories discussed may play a role, individually or in concert with another. Theorists continue to expand upon previous ideas as a way to further define causations of crime. It appears that all are viable explanations to a complex issue and can be utilized separately or together depending on each unique situation. The opportunity to perpetrate crime is encased within its own theory and it intersects all types of criminal behaviors. “When given a relatively easy opportunity to defraud without a reasonable likelihood of being punished for the actions could well make an otherwise law-abiding citizen to cross the line of ethical actions” (Felson & Clark, 1998: 11). Police officers definitely have ample opportunity to commit crimes as they are surrounded by and entrusted with large amounts of drugs and money on a daily basis. Police officers may be predisposed to crime because of issues occurring in their youth or have been exposed to negative, unlawful activities among the people with whom they associate, whether by colleague or criminal. Some believe it possible the propensity to commit crime begins in the womb. However, even sociologists understand that there is more to the understanding of deviant behavior among law enforcement officials. “To be sure, no single cause of crime is sufficient to guarantee its occurrence; yet opportunity above all others is necessary and therefore has as much or more claim to being a root cause” (Felson & Clark, 1998: 11). Corruption with regards to the police is generally defined as an officer acting in their or needs. It has been said and widely assumed that the power associated with authority over others tends to lead an individual to corruptive acts and police officers are no more or less prone to human frailties as anyone else. However, when a policeman is charged with corruption and breaking the laws they are sworn to protect, it is always a shocking revelation to the public no matter how prevalent it is known to be. “Most studies support the view that corruption is endemic, if not universal, in police departments” (Sherman, 1978: 31). It is somewhat ironic that while the public generally expects at least a small fraction of a police department to contain some forms of corruption within it, the surprise is no less severe when it happens. Of those law-enforcement officials convicted of various corruption offenses resulting from FBI led investigations between 1993 and 1997, about half were for drug-related offenses. More than 100 drug-related cases involving police officers are prosecuted nationwide every year. Another of the indications of the widespread problem of corrupt cops is that all of the federal drug enforcement agencies have had at least one of its agents implicated in a drug-related offense. Officers nationwide have given in to the same temptations offered by the selling of drugs that have lured their criminal adversaries. This discussion examines the scope of the problem citing specific examples and the possible criminological reasons behind this behavior. The growth of police corruption instances involving drug sales is relatively easy to explain. The financial rewards offered by the sales of illegal drugs in relation to other forms of income both legal and illegal, is enormous. The temptation attracts law enforcement officials who are becoming increasingly more discouraged by the growing proliferation of drug traffickers. Though police agencies of all descriptions have fought the 30-plus year ‘drug war’ by spending billions of dollars and locking up millions of people, their efforts have not only not ended drug use or sales but drugs are now more available, cheaper and purer than ever before. Disheartened police officers involved in stopping drug crimes put their lives in jeopardy but are under-paid and under-appreciated by an indifferent public. Many officers joined the force to protect and serve but find themselves regulating an illegal drug market that they know they will never suppress. As long as the U.S. government continues its disastrous ‘war,’ formerly well-intentioned cops will continue to be lured by the money to be had by engaging in the drug trade they are expected to prevent. They risk their lives for a war which has no end and they know this fact better than anyone. Fighting a losing battle discourages even the most loyal and honest of law officials and some use this to justify becoming involved in a drug cartel. It’s easy money, they are being underpaid for dangerous work and their efforts are futile. In 2002, 41 police officers in Tijuana, Mexico were arrested (Peet, 2004). These officers, who included the Chief of Police, were on the payroll of drug dealers. They protected drug shipments, took bribes and committed murders. The allegations against these police officers is hardly an isolated incident in Mexico as most of the towns located along the border of the U.S. are controlled and ‘policed’ by drug cartels (Peet, 2004). Any country that wages a war on drugs faces corruption among its police officers, politicians, judges, etc. This includes the U.S as well. A 1992 incident involving police corruption in New York City brought national attention to the problem when five police officers were placed under arrest accused of selling drugs. The ‘ring-leader,’ Michael Dowd, had been on the force for 10 years and has been dealing drugs much of that time (Lacayo, 1993). According to reports, Dowd was corrupt from early-on in his career. He escalated from expecting and receiving free pizza when a rookie to stealing money obtained during drug arrests to blatantly stealing money and drugs from dealers then selling the drugs on the same streets he took them from. Dowd took a lesson from the street gangs and formed a gang of his own that consisted of more than a dozen other corrupt cops. Over a period of many years, Dowd managed to buy four houses and a Corvette valued at $35,000 on his $22,000 per year salary, yet was not questioned by NYPD department officials (Lacayo, 1993). The suburb where Dowd bought the luxurious homes did notice these discrepancies and questioned his financial inconsistency. His arrest was the first of five others in his gang. This event reminded the media, public and politicians alike of the citywide corruption in the NYPD uncovered two decades earlier by Frank Serpico whose story was the subject of the famous movie ‘Serpico’ (Lacayo, 1993). Just two years following the Dowd incident, Richard Rivera, another NY police officer was arrested for corruption involving drugs (General Accounting Office, 1998: 37). He quickly agreed to spy on his fellow police officers in a plea bargain deal. His subsequent clandestine actions led to the revelation of a group of vicious, drug addicted cops who terrorized the streets of New York taking whatever they liked such as drugs and money and brutalizing whoever might resist their illegal dealings. One officer in this infamous group was found to have a million dollars in his locker at the police station (General Accounting Office, 1998: 37). This money was being laundered in cooperation with a major drug cartel. A couple of years following this revelation, police force gangs in Philadelphia were found to have mimicked their NYC brethren by assaulting, robbing and selling drugs. The investigation lasted the three years that included 1995 to 1998. During this time, “10 police officers from Philadelphia’s 39th District have been charged with planting drugs on suspects, shaking down drug dealers for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and breaking into homes to steal drugs and cash” (General Accounting Office, 1998: 37). Much the same as the corrupt New York cops, Philadelphia’s 39th district police officers abused their power by raiding known places that used or sold cocaine but, instead of making arrests, stole the money, drugs and guns. What they didn’t sell outright, the stolen cocaine was used in trade for sex, to bribe witnesses and to pay drug informants (Parenti, 1996). The scandal involved at least half a dozen officers and led to the overturning of more than 50 previous convictions because of ‘evidence’ that had been planted by police and faulty testimony of addicts that lied on the stand so as to collect their pay-off and/or to avoid being beaten by police. In addition, a Philadelphia grand jury specially convened for the purpose investigated more than 100,000 other convictions. According to Lynn Washington, legal scholar and editor of the Philadelphia New Observer, “What’s most disturbing about the Philly corruption is that the [District Attorney] knew what the cops were up to, but tolerated their use of planted evidence because it boosted conviction rates” (Parenti, 1996). Washington, as do many others, puts the blame of police corruption on the ‘drug war.’ “No one from the judges on down wants to look soft on crime, so everybody has turned a blind eye to police misconduct...” (Washington cited in Parenti, 1996). The increase of the drug trade in the U.S. due at least in part to the government’s war on drugs has supplied violent drug cartels and police officers alike with widespread opportunities to profit from criminal activity. Corruption within police departments is a nationwide epidemic which, while various in nature, is thoroughly intertwined with the narcotics trade. The criminality of police officers focuses mainly on the dealing of heroine and cocaine but the terrorist tactics go much further than simply harassing dealers and addicts. Philadelphia police framed 54-year-old grandmother Betty Patterson who didn’t have a police record and went to church twice a week (General Accounting Office, 1998: 36). Fortunately she was acquitted yet still traumatized. The epidemic of police corruption, just as the illegal trade of drugs, is not exclusively an east-coast, big city problem. Examples of cities where drug-related police corruption cases have been opened for public scrutiny include “Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Savannah, and Washington, DC” (General Accounting Office, 1998: 36-37). Evidence of corruption within police forces can be found in large cities and small towns throughout the nation. The drug laws on both state and federal levels have contributed to the abuse of power and corruption among law enforcement officials across the U.S. A comparison can be made to similar circumstances that occurred during the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s. It is well-known that alcohol prohibition encouraged the proliferation of criminal gangs and the associated violent activities. It also made criminals out of policemen who took bribes to ‘look the other way’ while illegal booze was delivered to and consumed at ‘speak easies.’ Drug prohibition has caused much more violence due to the growth of gang-related activities in addition to more instances as well as types of corruption among the police ranks than did alcohol prohibition. According to a 1998 report by the General Accounting Office, “...several studies and investigations of drug-related police corruption found on-duty police officers engaged in serious criminal activities, such as conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures; stealing money and/or drugs from drug dealers; selling stolen drugs; protecting drug operations; providing false testimony; and submitting false crime reports” (General Accounting Office, 1998: 8). Police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct by the public therefore shock and outrage is acute when instances occur. In addition, corrupt police officers pose a greater danger to the public than do civilian criminals because of the authority factor. Certain, controlled powers are happily allowed the police by the citizens so as to lessen their fears of crime. The revelation of corruption within the police force leads to thoughts of existing in a police state, a condition people fear more than civilian crime. Theories describing the causes of crime whether genetic, social or psychological are mere rationalizations. The public expects their police department to enforce the rules, not break them. When they do, it breaks down the trust of the public as well as the tearing down the very fabric of society. The problem of police corruption originates not in the causes of deviance common to all persons but in the laws they are trying to enforce. Corruption within law enforcement is an ethical problem, one that permeates throughout the entire justice system. References Agnew, Robert. (1985). “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces. Vol. 64, N. 1, pp. 151-167. Agnew, Robert. (1994). “Delinquency and the Desire for Money.” Justice Quarterly. Vol. 11, N. 4, pp. 411-427. Cressey, Donald R. (October 1979). “Fifty Years of Criminology: From Sociological Theory to Political Control.” Pacific Sociological Review. Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 457-480. Felson, Marcus & Clarke, Ronald V. (November 1998). “Opportunity Makes the Thief.” Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Crown Publishing. Retrieved March 23, 2008 from General Accounting Office. (May 1998). “Law Enforcement: Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption,” Report to the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Lacayo, Richard. (October 11, 1993). “Cops and Robbers.” Time Magazine. Retrieved March 23, 2008 from Lemert, Edwin M. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Parenti, Christian. (March 1996). “Police Crime.” Z Magazine. Retrieved Retrieved March 23, 2008 from Peet, Preston (Ed.). (2004). Under The Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs. The Disinformation Company Ltd. Retrieved March 23, 2008 from Pfuhl, Erdwin H. Jr. (1980). The Deviance Process. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company. Rosanoff, Aaron J.; Handy, Leva M.; & Rosanoff, Isabel Avis. (January 1934). “Criminality and Delinquency in Twins.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951). Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 923-934. Sherman, Lawrence W. (1978). Scandal and Reform: Controlling Police Corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Vinces, Marcelo. (1996). Behavioral Genetics. Cornell University Sci-tech archives. Retrieved March 23, 2008 from Read More