Ethics and Corruption in Law Eforcement - Research Paper Example

Ethics and Corruption in Law Enforcement The drug laws on both 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). 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 them regulating an illegal drug market that they know they will never suppress. As long as the U.S. government continues it’s 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, 1998). 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, 1998). 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, 1998). 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 heroin 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. While much of the corruption is drug-related, it extends to other forms of crime as well. The subsequent list is but a small sample of cops who have been caught abusing their position of authority. Members of the New Orleans Police Department committed horrific acts of police brutality after Hurricane Katrina as was well documented on television news. This department also had a history of corruption prior the hurricane. For instance, 11 New Orleans policemen were found guilty of taking almost $100,000 from federal undercover agents who told the corrupt officers that the money was being paid in exchange for them safeguarding a warehouse that contained cocaine. Following the murder of an undercover agent which resulted on orders from a policeman, the undercover segment was terminated (General Accounting Office, 1998: 36). In 1994, ten New Orleans police officers were indicted for selling guns and drugs in a department that was described, even at that time, as one of the most vicious police departments in the nation. Another officer was charged with orchestrating the killing of a woman who had filed charges of brutality against him (General Accounting Office, 1998: 36). In 1995, yet another New Orleans police officer was convicted of killing three persons while in the process of committing the robbery of a restaurant. One of the persons killed was the partner of the policeman. Cases abound of this type of activity. In 1990, seven Los Angeles sheriffs deputies, who were part of the area’s top narcotics unit, were convicted of stealing more than a million dollars in cash confiscated from drug busts. 30 Cleveland policemen were indicted for dealing narcotics, gambling, obstructing justice and extortion in 1991. That same year the entire Gary, Indiana vice squad unit was indicted on similar charges in addition to murder and setting up drug busts outside the department’s knowledge. William Hart, while chief of police in Detroit along with the deputy chief Kenneth Weiner, was convicted of stealing more than two million dollars from the undercover investigations fund in 1991. Again in 1991, a Camden, New Jersey detective was arrested for robbing a couple of banks. Police officers in Jersey City were caught selling more than 100 vehicles from the impound yard in 1995. A San Diego police officer was convicted of theft after he was videotaped breaking into a software company in 1995. The entire police force of Greenpoint, New York was disbanded in 1995 because of extensive drug abuse and corruption while on-duty (Parenti, 1998). Corruption with regards to the police is generally defined as an officer acting in their official capacity while at the same time abusing their authority to realize personal wants 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. 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 (Sherman, 1978: 31). 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. “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). Evidence abounds that corruption within the nation’s police forces does exist especially where illegal drugs are concerned. The reasons for this apparent trend are discussed from a sociological, biological, behavioral and material point of view. With this understanding, it is concluded that police officers with even high levels of moral and ethical codes become involved in drug crime for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which is fatigue, opportunity and proximity. 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. References Agnew, Robert. (1985). “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces. Vol. 64, N. 1, pp. 151-167. Felson, Marcus & Clarke, Ronald V. (November 1998). “Opportunity Makes the Thief.” Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Crown Publishing. Retrieved April 4, 2011 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. Lemert, Edwin M. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Parenti, Christian. (March 1998). “Police Crime.” San Francisco Bay Guardian Retrieved April 4, 2011 from < http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/558.html > Peet, Preston (Ed.). (2004). Under The Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs. The Disinformation Company Ltd. Retrieved April 4, 2011 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. Read More