The police are under the microscopic eye of citizens and bureaucracies
alike. They must uphold strong
convictions when subjected to certain temptations in dealing with the
public. At times, the police may feel
inclined to engage in criminal activities to ensure that criminals receive their
“just desserts.” They must serve and protect the greater good. This does not mean intentionally undermining
the system to “punish” offenders. The criminal
justice system consists of number of checks and balances to control police
misconduct.
Police officers must protect and ensure
the satisfaction of the public. If
police officers fail to meet citizen expectations, this may cause citizens to
feel that the overall police organization is deviant and/or untrustworthy. At
this point, it is unreasonable for citizens to make complaints to the police
organization ( Travis and Langworthy 467).
Restraints must be placed on officers to not only ensure citizen trust,
but also keep individual police officers on the “straight” and “narrow.” Travis and Langworthy (2007) note six sources
of external controls that may reduce misconduct and corruption of police
officers/agencies: the government, the media, ombudspersons, the courts, citizen-monitoring
organizations, and other police agencies.
Elected officials may greatly influence police behavior through their
power over the police agency budget, hiring, tenure, and other oversight
powers. These officials are directly
responsible and accountable to the citizens who elect them. This takes some of the pressures off police
officers since many of the citizens complaints will channel directly through
the elected official. In the past,
racial profiling was becoming a greater concern, causing the passage of
legislation that mandated police agencies keep statistics on the
characteristics of citizens stopped for vehicle violations (Strom and Durose,
2000). However, governmental
micromanaging leaves the police agencies exposed for possible political
corruption. The agencies may offer their
support only to the policies that they feel best suits their political
interests as opposed to citizen concerns.
This may not be the most effective way in deterring police misconduct
and corruption. Governmental and
political interference weakens the foundation of a police organization.
The media plays a key role in alerting citizens to instances of
unprofessional or irresponsible police behaviors. Historically, the media has always been
portrayed as the “watchdog” of society, and their life-long motto is “if it
bleeds, it leads”. However, their
tendency to embellish the truth may upset concerned citizens and police
alike. News broadcasts noting police
corruption will certainly spur the attention of apprehensive citizens now
demanding changes. The media may temporarily embarrass police agencies into
change. Although, the media, itself,
lacks the power to enforce change. They only have the power to inform citizens and
keep them updated on the most current news.
Furthermore, once the media coverage begins to lose public interest,
they quickly move on to the next “heart-wrenching” and possibly offensive story
to keep citizens continually upset and horrified.
The courts also play a crucial role in the everyday lives of
citizens. A citizen can seek court
intervention to prevent or even control various forms of police misconduct
(Travis and Langworthy 468). Police
officers who accept bribes may be brought to trial for police corruption and
citizens may file civil charges against police officers whose misconduct caused
them harm. The courts give citizens
discretion over a police officer’s behavior through exercising their right of
civil prosecution for wrong doings.
Court intervention only occurs after a wrongdoing has occurred, and
therefore does not represent an effective means of deterring police misconduct and
corruption.
I feel the best way to deter
police misconduct necessitates using a combination of external and internal
methods. Of the internal methods I, personally, feel the most effective way is
the bureaucratic model. Some individuals
require stricter supervision than do others. This model mandates that each
police officer shall adhere to policy regulations or they will receive disciplinary
actions for their lapse in judgment. In
my military experience, it was necessary to “watch” certain individuals to
ensure they stayed on task. However,
police officers must not feel micromanaged or restrained in the performance of
their duties. This may discourage many officers and cause resentment among the
ranks. Rules and regulations hold police
officers accountable for their actions, but they must also allow for the
discretion that each individual officer holds.
Work Cited
Goldstein, H. (1990).
Problem-oriented policing.
Lawerence, F.T.,& Langworthy, R.H.
(2007). Policing in America
No comments:
Post a Comment