The Miami River Cops Scandal

In order for a Police agency to prevent and deter Police misconduct, there must be a definition to what actions and behaviors that the term will encompass. The term ‘police corruption’ has been used to describe many activities: bribery; violence and brutality; fabrication and destruction of evidence; racism; favoritism or nepotism. Many different scholars differ in their own examples of the definition. Before attempting to the question of whether a precise definition is possible, it is worth examining the range of activities that might be included within a broad discussion of corruption. In (Bayley and Perito, 2011), it is defined as police corruption is a contested phrase with narrow and broad meanings. Narrowly

According to the textbook, Neal Trautman’s corruption continuum helps clarify the unscrupulous activities of cops. The corruption continuum includes four levels on how organizations can become corrupt. The principal level is as per the following: usage of approaches that guarantee that officers know the moral decides that they need to take after. On the off chance that the manager neglects to do this, then officers will trust that they can be degenerate and no will make a move to fix it. The following level is the procedure that includes police chiefs not doing anything when they know of exploitative acts are being dedicated by officers or when they attempt to cover for those officers who take part in defilement. The third level includes officers

Now that I have presented a brief understanding and background of the case against the five officers and the struggles police officers and the community face in South Camden, NJ, I will examine how five officers steered off of a virtuous path by the failures of the individuals and the environmental role in their demise. Specifically, I will identify the unethical behavior and contributing factors, provide my ethical opinion on the situation, the effects on the community, and how the

One city beside New York that comes to mind when dealing with police corruption is the Los Angeles Police Department. The LAPD has been dealing with police corruption for a very long time, through racism and police brutality. One of their most notable corrupted endeavor was when seventy officers in the Rampart division faced claims of planting drugs and guns, beating suspects in custody and even shooting innocent citizens in gang sweeps. Former officer Rafael Perez agreed to a plea bargaining after being caught stealing cocaine from the evidence room. Perez discuss an incident when he and his former partner shot an innocent man during gang raid and planted a gun on him. Due to these incidents over a hundred criminal convictions were overturned.

Growing up our parent always told us that police officers were the good guys, and the people that committed crimes were the bad guys. There was a time in our lives that we believed that this was true, police are good, and criminals are bad, simple as that. Police officers played a prominent role in our lives growing up, some were looked at as role models, guidance counselors, but most of all they were our friends. However, at what point did that connection dissipate between police officers and the community? This disconnection was most prominently exemplified in the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), where officer corruption, murder, and lawlessness was ramped within the department. Corruption had become a culture, a way of life for some officers in New Orleans, where supervisors dismissed allegations. Could the use of Rotten Apple mechanism help reduce the corruption in the NOPD? Comparatively, could the application of the Rotten Barrel models provide protection from police misconduct during an investigation?

Corruption within the New York Police Department is a quickly growing phenomenon; to an extent, this is largely due to the cop culture that encourages silence and draws the line at honesty. The good, honest officers are afraid to speak up against co-workers and in the process become corrupt themselves. When police departments were first established in the mid-nineteenth century, corruption quickly followed suit. It began with minor acts of misconduct and today deals with serious criminal activities. Scholars have noted that there is a strong correlation between the officers taking part in corrupt acts and officers wanting to fit in with the culture. In this paper, I argue that the deeper an officer in the New York police department gets into the police culture, the more likely it is that they become involved in narcotic corruption

Throughout all realms of the criminal justice system, it is hard to use discretion when arresting or prosecuting people. Another difficulty that police in our democratic society face is the discrepancy between their own personal freedoms and upholding the law, their job (Barkan, 2012). Police officers are allowed to think what they want or say how they feel, a right granted to them in the Bill of Rights. However, under the badge, police officers are required and expected to abide by the laws of the United States. Sometimes, the level of authority police hold in this situation can get them into trouble legally. This is what we call police misconduct (Barkan, 2012). One of the most notorious police scandals in history was the LA antigang Rampart Division scandal. In 2000, Rafael Perez, an LA police officer was arrested for stealing drugs. In exchange for a plea bargain Perez notified authorities of other corruptive instances in the Rampart Division. More than 70 officers were scrutinized for these acts (Barkan, 2012).

Police corruption can also be explained by the lack of protection and security police feel they have. They also feel like they are being disrespected by individuals in society, which is why they rely on the subculture for protection and support (Skolnick, 1966). The police subculture has created a lot of secrecy within the organization, which contributes to police misconduct. Police officers will often ignore another police officer’s corrupt actions in order to maintain a good reputation within the subculture (Tator & Henry, 2006). For example, 84% of police officers have directly witnessed another officer using more force than necessary out on the streets (US Department of Justice, 2017). However, instead of reporting the acts of others, 52%

Corruption has always been a danger to law enforcement, just as it has been a danger to all of mankind since the beginning of time. Since the very first police agency was formed in the 1800s, corruption has been widespread. The 19th century was an era in which politics played a very large role in police forces. Various political parties essentially had some police departments in their pockets, and as long as officers served to further those political parties’ agendas, the officers’ continued employment was guaranteed. Since politicians have not always been known for being straight-laced, one can easily see how corruption within police departments became prevalent. Since officers were not serving the people, but rather the political elite, their motives were constantly in question. It was not long before politicians began employing police officers to overlook and even protect their illicit activities. Through this practice, officers began to see the potential monetary and political benefits of allowing and participating in certain illegal actions. Even after the establishment of countermeasures such as police commissions, civil service exams, and legislative changes, corruption remained rampant. This corruption was perhaps best exemplified by none other than the actions of many officers within the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department.

However, you must ask yourself with the negatives of corruption being what is in the news and not the officers who set up softball leagues for youth in deprived communities, is it just a matter of people not being caught or even a front to make sure the people of the community would never expect them of wrong doing? The examples laid out show patterns of behavior, not one time slip ups that went on over lengthy time periods. Hiding what you do by projecting a positive side to the community and those around you in order to take any suspicion away from you about your morals. These are the same people who help old people across the road and come to the aide of citizens in trouble, the shining examples of taking pride in the community, yet the ones listed had a dark side and used their position to deceive and gain advantage in life at the expense of the same people they are supposed to serve and

Police executives have always had different issues within the police department. Most police executives try to find a quick fix in order to solve the issue of police misconduct. Police misconduct is defined as inappropriate action taken by police officers in relation with their official duties (Police Misconduct Law & Legal Definition, n.d.). In order to solve this issue, one must acknowledge their different challenges, overcome the “code of silence”, and find out the role of organizational culture.

Police corruption is one of the ethical issues affecting law enforcement officers. Corruption is defined as “impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; inducement to do wrong by improper or unlawful means” (Merriam Webster Online, 2009). While the most recognizable form of corruption involves officers taking money for favors (bribery), the actions that are considered corruption include filing false police reports, harassment of any person due to sex, race, creed, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, and failure to protect the rights of citizens. Corruption exists in all levels of law enforcement.

With the past and current issues our country is having with law enforcement officials the ethical deliberations about corruptions is constantly examining the foundations of police ethics. The reasoning following public corruption indicates an underlying social institutional structure that our country has created. In 2006, Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa were convicted of racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and murder charges. Louis and Stephen worked in the NYPD police department; however, they were actually working for the Lucchese crime family mafia. In 2001, Joseph Miedzianowski worked as both a police officer and a drug kingpin; therefore, he used his knowledge from both sides of his work to shake down drug dealers. From 1972 until 1991, Jon Burge oversaw the torture of hundreds of African American men with radiators, cigarettes, and electrocuted their testicles; therefore, in order to assure Chicago police department could get their confessions. During Hurricane Katrina Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso members of the New Orleans police department murdered an innocent sixteen-year-old James Brissette under a bridge. Situations like these are highly publicized and often lead the public to doubt our countries police department members. Corruption of ethics and morals within a police department is destructive, and can have a crippling effect on the police department’s organization. When an organization experiences a

From the first police station built in Boston to what is today's modern police force there has always been corruption inside the criminal justice system, whether it be something as little as a small bribe to look the other way, or something more serious like getting away with a major offense. The department of justice has had trouble from top to bottom with corruption and it has proven to be a difficult problem to fix. When policing in the U. S. were just starting out corruption and law bending was more prevalent but harder to see which Police officers who were following the rules and who was bending the law in their own favor to gain an advantage for themselves rather than looking out for the community as a whole. This is because when policing first started out there were limited officers, which meant less word of mouth and less people to respond to and

Some argue that corrupt police officers are simply the product of a corrupt culture of the agency they work for. These officers are socially introduced to a number of informal rules when they begin employment. This process and these rules serve two main purposes. First, this process is designed to minimize the chances of external or internal controls being mobilized to address the behaviors and, secondly, to keep corrupt activities at a level that is acceptable and likely undetectable. The rule most often referred to in this connection, is the “Code of Silence.” Officers are socialized into not cooperating with investigations regarding fellow officers. Whether or not the officer participates in corrupt activities for financial gain, an officer’s adherence to the “Code of Silence” places them squarely amongst the corrupt of the profession (Price, 1972).