For numerous years, corruption within the police department has been a national problem. The corruption is not only limited to America, it reaches parts of Asia and Europe. Police officers are investigated regarding this issue, with good judgement. Corruption and misconduct in the police department are evident in various embodiment.
The definition of “corruption” is when an officer uses their position to acquire unprofessional benefits, mainly through bribes (Goldstein, 1977). The abuse of power transpires in three separate fields, psychological, physical, and legal misconduct (Carter, 1985). Psychological misconduct happens through disdain, coercion, scorn, and terror, while physical misconduct uses unrestrained force and physical intimidation. Lastly, legal misconduct occurs through illegal search and seizure methods or fabricating proof.
Monetary profit is the first thing an individual recalls when corruption in the police department is discussed, mainly because officers are subjected to enticing opportunities, such as reclamation of missing property and bribes from owners and managers of restaurants. Because of new policies and improvements regarding the department and system of selecting new officers, this level of corruption has been hindered. Currently, officers are hired because of their dedication to their principles, which makes them susceptible to the noble cause corruption theory (Dempsey and Frost, 2012)
The important question every officer should ask themselves is if the method used to resolve a problem or the outcome more important to them. This is an ethical dilemma that tests every officer because of their influence on society — both the legal and anarchic. How an officer deals with a predicament says which category they fall into. When classifying officers, society only has two categories: good and bad. Both revolve around unlawful components, with the good officers apprehend them while the bad officers defend. It may be unmistakable in theory, however, it is challenging to categorize officers, because some officers begin taking part of illegal activities for the sake of the community.
According to Dempsey and Frost (2012), the noble cause corruption is described as circumstance where an officer accomplishes the right solution by manipulating the rules. According to Caldero and Crank, there are four tests on the slippery slope model. The first test is free meals, which is a test of loyalty. The second test is also loyalty, but to a version of events from another officer. The third test is physical violence against citizens, while the last test is flaking drugs (Dempsey and Frost, 2012). Just a small handful of incidents of corruption can ruin the reputation of the department and destroy the trust around the community.
Noble cause corruption vastly differs from traditional corruption. Traditional corruption is to take advantage and reap benefits from an individual’s position. Advantages vary from officer to officer, but...