Law Enforcement Strategies and Police Corruption

Police Corruption

Police corruption takes place when an officer misuses his or her authority and official capacity to bring about personal gain. Police corruption takes place anytime an officer receives advantage or reward for: (1) doing something that he or she is required to do under duty anyway; (2) doing something that an officer is prohibited from doing on duty; (3) exercising police discretion, but for improper reasons; or (4) employing illegal or immoral means to achieve police goals. Defining police corruption this way embodies the variety of behaviors typically defined as police corruption and the rewards associated with corruption, which may be personal in nature—including money, gifts, power, and prestige, or organizational rewards such as promotion, approval of administrators, and colleague's support (Bracey, 1992).

The History of Police Corruption in America

The American police experience with corruption has been unique, and the history of corruption in the United States has influenced the character and structure of law enforcement in many ways. In the political era of policing (1840-1930), urban police officers bought their jobs, their assignments, and promotions. Officers could expect to recoup the costs and make a profit from graft. The vice laws—those regulating alcohol, gambling, and prostitution, were the most common, supplemented by ignoring building and health codes, Sabbath closings, and traffic laws. Despite several post-war police scandals that led to extensive reform (e.g., Gross Commission, 1953; Los Angeles, 1951; Oakland, 1955), corruption was not eliminated from American policing. Real progress in understanding and dealing with corruption began in the 1960s, when police began to understand that the problem was systematic, not just the result of a devious few. Previous to this time, police departments suggested that the problem of corruption was the occasional “rotten apple,” the uniformed officer who accepts an occasional bribe. Defining corruption in this way did not explain the pervasiveness or the organization of corruption in many departments (Brown, 1981).

Criminal Justice/Enforcement Strategies of Drug Control

Many governments spend considerable sums of public money, both directly and indirectly, on “drug-related” expenditure in pursuit of the current prohibitionist policy of drug control. Over the last 40 years much of this spending has been devoted to drug law enforcement (DLE) activities. This is despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of efforts aimed at curbing drug production at source or constraining supply along transit routes and within national borders. While there tends to be more research supporting the use of certain demand and harm reduction strategies (e.g., drug treatment), any benefits from these interventions are often only derived by a minority of the “problem” drug-using population. Given the emergence of new illicit drug problems in a number of developing countries, and the persistence of existing ones in those developed nations hosting mature drug market structures that continue to prove resilient to DLE activities, much more still needs to be done—both in terms of improving our understanding of these issues and deploying effective responses. This includes more accurately conceptualizing, describing, and mapping the nature, extent, and development ...