Abstract
Given the rampant negative reporting about the police and the perceived lack of public trust and confidence in law enforcement officials in the United States, one may be surprised to learn that allegations of acts of police brutality, serious misconduct, and corruption are extremely rare. Empirical evidence reveals that the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement personnel routinely conduct themselves professionally and with the public’s interests and concerns in mind. However, the few isolated incidents that have involved the excessive use of force by police or acts of corruption, among other forms of police deviance, have clearly tarnished the positive reputations of law enforcement personnel, not only locally but at times nationally. A number of respected criminology and criminal justice researchers have attempted to define police deviance, corruption, misconduct, and inappropriate behavior, but none of them have done so with universal agreement and often not reflecting practical realities. The author has proposed a new typology for the five most obvious categories of police deviance: (1) police corruption, (2) police criminality, (3) excessive use of force, (4) abuse of authority, and (5) police misconduct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In New York City and other jurisdictions, police officers are permitted to work in most security positions with the specific permission of their agency administrators, so this does not necessarily mean that police personnel who work a second job in the security field are deviant or corrupt. As such, classifying the option of working security as a secondary profession as ‘police deviance’ or ‘corruption’ would not always be accurate.
- 2.
Accepting free coffee has presented some discomfort to police administrators. On one hand, the police should move closer to the community, and accepting a cup of coffee or a nonalcoholic beverage would be considered appropriate within the boundaries of community policing. Some businesses that operate 24 h (e.g., 7/11 stores, Dunkin Donuts, diners, and some gas stations) have established the standard practice of providing free coffee to uniformed police personnel, more so on the night shift. On the other hand, there are businesses that provide free coffee and/or discounted meals to police personnel often with an expectation (e.g., no traffic tickets issues in front of their business or perhaps permitting illegal activity such as gambling to take place on those premises). Again, this is a sensitive situation as each instance may have to be judged on its own specific characteristics and intentions. A troubling issue for frontline police personnel is that they often see high-ranking administrators attending community, business, or interagency meetings where meals are served and they do not understand how that is different from them accepting coffee or discounted meals from local restaurants. The matter also has to be evaluated in relation to its perception by the public.
- 3.
The author worked for the New York City Police Department for 22 years from 1982 through 2003, including an assignment conducting internal investigations.
References
Barker, T., & Carter, D. L. (1993). Police deviance (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
Crank, J. P., & Caldero, M. A. (1999). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9, 307–314.
Fyfe, J. J., & Kane, R. (2006). Bad cops: A study of career-ending misconduct among New York City police officers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Haberfeld, M. R., Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., & Pagon, M. (2000). Police officer perceptions of the disciplinary consequences of police corruption in Croatia, Poland, Slovenia, and the United States. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 41–72.
Harris, D. A. (2009). How accountability-based policing can reinforce—Or replace—The fourth amendment exclusionary rule. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 149.
Hickman, M. J., Piquero, A. R., Lawton, B. A., & Greene, J. R. (2001). Applying tittle’s control balance theory to police deviance. Policing, 24(4), 497–519.
Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. (1991). Report of the independent commission on the Los Angeles police department. Los Angeles: Independent Commission on the LAPD.
Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2003). The contours of police integrity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Packman, D. (2010). National police misconduct Reporting system. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Punch, M. (2000). Police corruption and its prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 301–324.
Tittle, C. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Transparency International. (2017). Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Berlin: Transparency International.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Albrecht, J.F. (2017). Understanding Police Deviance. In: Police Brutality, Misconduct, and Corruption . SpringerBriefs in Criminology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64438-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64438-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64437-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64438-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)