Police Corruption
Police corruption is a complex issue. Police corruption or the abuse
of
authority by a police officer, acting officially to fulfill personal needs
or
wants, is a growing problem in the United States today. Things such as
an
Internal Affairs department, a strong leadership organization, and
community
support are just a few considerations in the prevention of police
corruption. An
examination of a local newspaper or any police-related
publication in an urban
city during any given week would most likely have an
article about a police
officer that got caught committing some kind of
corrupt act. Police corruption
has increased dramatically with the illegal
cocaine trade, with officers acting
alone or in-groups to steal money from
dealers or distribute cocaine themselves.
Large groups of corrupt police
have been caught in New York, New Orleans,
Washington, DC, and Los
Angeles, as well as many other cities. Corruption within
police departments
falls into 2 basic categories, external corruption and
internal corruption.
In this research project, I will concentrate on external
corruption.
Recently, external corruption has been given the larger center of
attention.
I have decided to include the fairly recent accounts of corruption
from a few
major cities, mainly New York, because that is where I have lived in
the past
year. I compiled my information from a number of articles written in
the New
York Times over the last few years. My definitional information
and
background data came from books that have been written on the issues of
police
corruption. Those books helped me create a basis of just what the
different
types of corruption, as well as how and why corruption happens.
Corruption in
policing is usually viewed as the mistreatment of authority by
police officer
acting officially to fulfill personal needs or wants. For a
corrupt act to
occur, three distinct elements of police corruption must be
present
simultaneously: 1) mishandling of authority, 2) mishandling of
official
capacity, and 3) mishandling of personal attainment (Dantzker, 1995:
p 157). It
can be said that power, inevitably tends to corrupt. It is yet to
be recognized
that while there is no reason to suppose that policemen as
individuals are any
less fallible than other members of society, people are
often shocked and
outraged when policemen are exposed violating the law. The
reason is simple;
their deviance elicits a special feeling of betrayal. "Most
studies support
the view that corruption is endemic, if not universal, in
police departments.
The danger of corruption for police, is that it may
invert the formal goals of
the organization and may lead to the use of
organizational power to encourage
and create crime rather than to deter it"
(Sherman 1978: p 31). Police
corruption falls into two major categories--
external corruption, which concerns
police contacts with the public; and
internal corruption, which involves the
relationships among policemen within
the works of the police department. The
external corruption generally
consists of one or more of the following
activities: 1) Payoffs to the
police, by people who essentially violate
non-criminal elements, who fail to
comply with stringent statutes or city
ordinances. 2) Payoffs to the police,
by individuals who continually break the
law, using various methods to earn
illegal money. 3) "Clean Graft"
where money is paid to the police for
services, or where courtesy discounts are
given as a matter of course to the
police. "Police officers have been
involved in activities such as extortion
of money and/or narcotics from drug
violators. In order for these violators
to avoid arrest, the police officers
have accepted bribes, and accepted
narcotics, which they turned around and sold.
These police know of the
violations, and fail to take proper enforcement action.
They have entered
into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in
some cases have
used narcotics. They have given false testimonies in court in
order to obtain
dismissal of the charges against a defendant" (Sherman
1978: p 129). A
scandal is perceived both as a socially constructed phenomenon,
and as an
agent of change that can lead to realignments in the structure of
power
within organizations. New York, for instance, has had more than a half
dozen
major scandals concerning its police department within a century. It was
the
Knapp Commission in 1972 that first brought attention to the New York
Police
Department, when they released the results of over 2 years of
investigations of
alleged corruption. The findings were that bribery,
especially among narcotics
officers, was extremely high. As a result many
officers were prosecuted and many
more lost their jobs. A massive
re-structuring took place afterwards with strict
rules and regulations to
make sure that the problem would never happen again. Of
course, the problem
did arise again. One of the more recent events to shake New
York City and
bring attention to the national problem of police corruption was
brought up
beginning in 1992, when five officers were arrested on
drug-trafficking
charges. Michael Dowd, the suspected 'ring leader', was the
kind of cop who
gave new meaning to the word moonlighting. It wasn't just any
job that the
10-year veteran of the New York City force was working on the side.
Dowd
was a drug dealer. From scoring free pizza as a rookie, he graduated
to
pocketing cash seized in drug raids, and from there simply to robbing
dealers
outright, sometimes even relieving them of drugs that he would then
resell. Soon
he had formed ``a crew'' of 15 to 20 officers in his Brooklyn
precinct that hit
up dealers regularly. Eventually one of them was paying
Dowd and another officer
$8,000 a week in protection money. Dowd bought four
suburban homes and a $35,000
red Corvette. Not one person had asked how he
managed all of that on take-home
pay of about $400 a week. In May 1992, Dowd,
four other officers, and one former
officer were arrested for drug
trafficking by police in Long Island's Suffolk
County. When the arrests
hit the papers, it was time for discipline among the
police brass. Not only
had some of their cops become corrupt, but also the
crimes had to be
uncovered and revealed by a suburban police force. Politicians,
as well as
the media, started asking what had happened to the system of rooting
out
police corruption established 21 years ago. "At the urging of the
Knapp
Commission, the investigative body heard Officer Frank Serpico and
other police
officers describe a citywide network of rogue cops"(New York
Times, March
29, 1993: p 8). "Later, in the same Manhattan hearing room
where the Knapp
Commission once sat, the new body heard Dowd and other
officers add another
lurid chapter to the old story of police corruption.
Many American cities were
now worried that drug money will turn their
departments bad" (New York
Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5). Reports have
shown that the large majority of
corrupt acts by police involve payoffs from
both the perpetrators and the
"victims" of victimless crimes. The Knapp
commission in New York found
that although corruption among police officers
was not restricted to this area,
the bulk of it involved payments of money to
the police from gamblers and
prostitutes (Knapp Commission Report, 1973: PP
1-3). "The cops who were
engaged in corruption 20 years ago took money to
cover up the criminal activity
of others," says Michael Armstrong, who was
chief counsel to the Knapp
Commission. " Now it seems cops have gone into
competition with street
criminals" (Newsweek, Oct 21,1992: p. 18). Gambling
syndicates in the
1950's were protected by a payoff system more elaborate
than the Internal
Revenue Service. Pervasive corruption may have lessened
in recent years, as many
experts believe, but individual examples seem to
have grown more outrageous. In
March of 1993, authorities in Atlanta
broke up a ring of weight-lifting officers
who were charged with robbing
strip clubs and private homes, and even carrying
off a 450-lb. safe from a
retail store (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11).
The deluge of cash
that has flowed from the drug trade has created opportunities
for quick dirty
money on a scale never seen before. In the 1980's, Philadelphia
saw more than
30 officers convicted of taking part in a scheme to extort money
from
dealers. In Los Angeles, a FBI probe focusing on the LA County
sheriff's
department has resulted so far in 36 indictments and 19 convictions
on charges
related to enormous thefts of cash during drug raids -- more than
$1 million
dollars in one instance. "The deputies were pursuing the money
more
aggressively than they were pursuing drugs, says Assistant U.S. Attorney
Steven
Bauer" (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p.11). When cities enlarge,
their
police forces act quickly in response to public fears about crime. This
can also
mean an influx of younger officers, and fewer numbers of
well-suited,
better-trained officers. This was a major reason for the
enormous corruption
scandal that hit Miami in the middle 1980's. This was
when about 10% of the
Miami's police were jailed, fired, or disciplined.
They were in connection with
a scheme in which officers robbed and some-times
killed cocaine smugglers on the
Miami River, then resold the drugs. Many
of those involved had been hired when
the department had beefed up quickly
after the 1980 riots and the Mariel
boatlift. "We didn't get the quality of
officers we should have, says
department spokesman Dave Magnusson" (Carter,
1989: pp. 78-79). When it
came time to clean house, says former Miami police
chief Perry Anderson, civil
service board members often chose to protect
corrupt cops if there was no hard
evidence to convict them in the courts. "I
tried to fire 25 people with
tarnished badges, but it was next to impossible,
he recalls" (Carter, 1989:
pp. 78-79). The real test of a department is not
so much whether its officers
are tempted by money, but whether there is an
institutional culture that
discourages them from succumbing. In Los Angeles,
the sheriff's department
"brought us the case", says FBI special agent
Charlie Parsons.
"They worked with us hand in glove throughout the
investigation"
(Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11). In the years after it
was established,
following the Knapp Commission disclosures, the New York
City police
department's internal affairs division was considered one of the
nation's most
effective in stalking corruption. This may not be the case
anymore; police
sergeant Joseph Trimboli, a department investigator, told the
Mollen Commission
that when he tried to root out Dowd and other corrupt cops,
higher- ranked
officers in the department blocked him. At one point, Trimboli
claimed he was
called to a meeting of police officials, and was told he was
under suspicion as
a drug trafficker. However, "They did not want this
investigation to exist,
he said" (New York Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5). It
was at this time that
New York City police commissioner, Raymond Kelly,
announced a series of changes,
including a larger staff, and better-
coordinated field investigations,
intending to improve internal affairs. His
critics say those changes didn't go
far enough, much of that happened after
Kelly's reforms had been announced.
Getting the information about the
corrupted police officers was no easier when
officers were encouraged to
report wrongdoing to authorities within their own
department. In many cities
that have them, internal affairs divisions are
resented within the ranks for
getting cops to turn in other cops -- informers
are even recruited from
police-academy cadets. "One of the things that has
come out in the hearings
is a culture within the department which seems to
permit corruption to exist,
says Walter Mack, a one time federal prosecutor who
is now New York's deputy
commissioner of internal affairs. When you are talking
about cultural change,
you're talking about many years. It's not something that
occurs overnight"
(New York Post, June 14, 1993: p. 28). Dowd, who was
sentenced to prison on
guilty plea, put it another way. "Cops don't want to
turn in other cops. Cops
don't want to have a rat. Even when honest cops are
willing to blow the
whistle, there may not be anyone willing to listen"(New
York Times, Mar.
29, 1993: p. 14). Is there a solution to the police corruption
problem?
Probably not, because since its beginnings, many aspects of policing
have
changed, but one thing that has not, is the existence of corruption.
Police
agencies, in an attempt to eliminate corruption have tried everything
from
increasing salaries, requiring more training and education, and
developing
policies which are intended to focus directly of factors leading
to corruption.
Despite police departments' attempts to control
corruption, it still occurs.
Regardless of the fact, police corruption
cannot simply be over looked.
Controlling corruption is the only way that
we can really limit corruption,
because corruption is the by-product of the
individual police officer, and
police environmental factors. Therefore,
control must come from not only the
police department, but it also must
require the assistance and support of the
community members. Controlling
corruption from the departmental level requires a
strong leadership
organization, because corruption can take place anywhere from
the patrol
officer to the chief. The top administrator must make it clear from
the start
that he and the other members of the department are against any form
of
corrupt activity, and that it will not be tolerated in any way, shape,
or
form. If a police administrator does not act strongly with disciplinary
action
against any corrupt activity, the message conveyed to other officers
within the
department would not be that of intimated nature. In addition it
may even
increase corruption, because officers feel no actions will be taken
against
them. Another way that police agencies can control its corruption
problem starts
originally in the academy. Ethical decisions and behavior
should be taught. If
they fail to, it would make officers unaware of the
consequences of corruption
and do nothing but encourage it. Finally, many
police departments especially
large ones should have an Internal Affairs
unit, which operates to investigate
improper conduct of police departments.
These units' some-times are run within
the department. They can also be a
total outside agency, to insure that there is
no corruption from within the
Internal Affairs unit, as was alleged in the 1992
New York Police
Department corruption scandal. Such a unit may be all that is
needed to
prevent many officers from being tempted into falling for corrupt
behavior
patterns. Although the police department should be the main source
of
controlling its own corruption problem, it also requires some support
and
assistance from the local community. It is important that the public be
educated
to the negative affects of corruption on their police agency. The
community may
even go as far as establishing review boards, and investigative
bodies to help
keep a careful eye on the agency. If we do not act to try and
control it, the
costs can be enormous, because it affects not only the
individual, but also his
department, the law enforcement community as a whole
and society as well. Police
corruption can be controlled; it just takes a
little extra effort. In the end,
that effort will be well worth it to both
the agency and the community (Walker,
1992: p. 89). The powers given by
the state to the police to use force have
always caused concern. Although
improvements have been made to control
corruption, numerous opportunities
exist for deviant and corrupt practices. The
opportunity to acquire power in
excess of that which is legally permitted or to
abuse power is always
available. The police subculture is a contributing factor
to these practices,
because officers who often act in a corrupt manner are often
over looked, and
condoned by other members of the subculture. As mentioned from
the very
beginning of this paper the problem of police deviance and corruption
will
never be completely solved, just as the police will never be able to
solve
all the crime problems in our society. The only thing they or anyone
can do is
decreasing it. One step in the right direction, however, is the
monitoring and
control of the police and the appropriate use of police style
to enforce laws
and to provide service to the public. The connection of
police corruption and
organized crime is clear and simple. Without police
corruption it would be much
harder for the organized crime to work their
businesses. In a hypothetical city
or town, where there is no corruption what
so ever, an organized crime group
could not work in the same pace that they
are used to. On the other hand, a city
with much police corruption would work
in favor of the organized crime business.
Usually, the problem standing
in front of the organized crime businesses are the
law enforcement agencies,
but corruption prevents their main concern and
eliminates the majority of the
problems.
Bibliography
Beals, Gregory (Oct 21, 1993). Why Good
Cops Go Bad. Newsweek, p. 18. Carter,
David L. (1986). Deviance &
Police. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. Castaneda,
Ruben (Jan 18, 1993).
Bearing the Badge of Mistrust. The Washington Post, p. 11.
Dantzker, Mark
L. (1995). Understanding Today's Police. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, inc.
James, George (March 19, 1993). Confessions of Corruption.
The New York
Times, p. 8. James, George (Nov 17, 1993). Officials Say
Police
Corruption is Hard To Stop. The New York Times, p. 3. Sherman,
Lawrence W.
(1978). Scandal and Reform. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Simpson, Scott T. (June 14, 1993). Mollen Commission Findings. New
York Post, p.
28 Walker, J.T. (1992). Briefs of 100 leading cases in the
law enforcement.
Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company. Weber, Bruce
(April 3, 1993).
Confessions of Corruption. The New York Times, p. 5.