|
Law Enforcement Ethics . . .
The Continuum of Compromise
Published by:
The Police Chief Magazine
January 1998
Written by:
Kevin M. Gilmartin, Ph.D.
John (Jack) J. Harris, M.Ed.
Police corruption is often seen as a distant
problem peculiar to "big city cops" or "other departments."
Denial and refusal to accept the potential for ethical compromise
and corruption at " our department" prevents administrators and
officers from developing an in-depth understanding and
appreciation of the issues. Without a clear understanding,
adequate information and practical strategies, officers who are
exposed to a risk-filled environment are more likely to engage in
inappropriate behaviors that can destroy their professional and
personal lives . . . as well as the reputation and credibility of
their organizations. The transformation from an idealistic,
highly ethical officer into a self-serving individual who believes
"if we don't look out for ourselves who will?" is a subtle process
that usually occurs before the officers knows what has happened.
For ethics training to be effective, officers have to see the
information as relevant and credible. The typical "soap box"
approach, whether taught by internal affairs, supervisors and
commanders, attorneys or others is often seen as scolding, warning
and threatening. This approach, even when the information is
interesting and enlightening, is rarely internalized by the
officers nor incorporated into their day-to-day activities.
The Continuum of Compromise
In this article, the authors explain the "continuum of compromise'
(Gilmartin & Harris, 1995). It is a frame work for understanding
and teaching how the transition from "honest cop" to "compromised
officer" can occur. Law enforcement agencies can help prepare
their officers for the ethical challenges they face during their
careers. However, that will require changing the way this topic
is approached by the organization and teaching and integrating the
information throughout the organization.
Officers live and work in a constantly
changing and dynamically social context in which they are exposed
to a myriad of ethical conflicts. When either unprepared or
unaware, officers are more likely to "go with the flow" than they
would be if they were adequately prepared to face potentially
ethical risks. Everyday, officers practice mental preparation as
it relates to tactical situations. Officers who are mentally
prepared to face a lethal encounter are more likely to be
successful than other officers who are tactically proficient but
mentally unprepared. Just like lethal encounters, ethical
dilemmas occur at the most inopportune times, frequently without
warning and with little time to stop and think about situation.
When inadequately prepared, even the most honest, above reproach
officers can make inappropriate split-second ethical decisions . .
. decisions that can result in life-changing consequences. If
officers are going to survive ethical dilemmas they need to be as
mentally prepared as they would be for tactical encounters.
While police work is seductive and
exhilarating, it can also lead officers down the path of ethical
compromise. The "continuum of compromise" outlines the path of
ethical compromise and can be used to help officers understand and
mentally prepare for the ethical dilemmas they will face.
Understanding the issues and being mentally prepared will help
officers assume responsibility for and make more appropriate
decisions. Compromising behavior has to be seen as something that
can potentially affect all law enforcement officers . . . not just
those in "corruption rich" environments. Officers who view
compromise or corruption as an " all or none" phenomenon will not
see themselves as "at risk." When the potential for compromise is
not recognized, officers will see compromise as an unlikely event,
training will be viewed as a waste of time and officers will not
become mentally prepared. Understanding the continuum of
compromise will allow officers to recognize the risks, assess
their own potential for compromise and develop an effective
strategy to ensure ethical integrity. When teaching ethics the
goal must be to develop an understanding of the progression
towards compromise and the development of self-monitoring
strategies to prevent becoming embroiled in compromising events.
The Continuum of Compromise
A Perceived Sense of Victimization can lead to the
Rationalization & Justification of:
Acts of Omission
Acts of Commission - Administrative
Act of Commission - Criminal
Entitlement versus Accountability
Loyalty vs. Integrity
Officers frequently develop a perceived sense of victimization
over time. Officers typically begin their careers as
enthusiastic, highly motivated people. However, when these young
officers over-invest in and over-identify with their professional
role they will develop a sense of singular-identity based on their
job and an increased sense of victimization. At greatest risk are
officers whose jobs literally become their lives. For them, "I am
a cop." is not just a cliché but rather a way of life.
Over-identification and over-investment causes people to link
their sense of self to their police role . . . a role they do not
control. While this builds camaraderie, it can also cause
officers to eventually hate and resent the job they once loved.
While officers have absolute control over
their own integrity and professionalism, the rest of their police
role is controlled by someone else. Department rules, procedures,
policies, equipment, budget allocations, assignments, dress codes,
and many other day-to-day and long-term activities are controlled
by the chief, commanders, supervisors, prosecuting attorneys, the
criminal justice system, laws, the courts, politicians, etc.
Officers who over-identify with the job soon experience a loss of
control over other aspects of their lives. Professional
over-investment, coupled with a loss of personal control puts
officers at serious risk . . . a risk, that in some ways is more
dangerous than the physical risks they face on the street. "It
doesn't matter how guilty you are, but how slick your lawyer is,"
can become the officers cynical yet reality-based perception of
the legal system. Thee realities combine with over-investment to
develop an "Us versus them" perception in terms of how officers
see the world.
The physical risks that officers are exposed
to each day require them to see the world as potentially lethal.
To survive, they have to develop a "hypervigilant" (Gilmartin,
1984) mind-set. Hypervigilance coupled with over-investment leads
officers to believe the only person you can really trust is
another cop . . . a "real cop" that is, not some "pencil-neck in
the administration." While officers first become alienated from
the public, they can soon distance themselves from the criminal
justice system and finally from their own department
administration. "I can handle the morons on the street, I just
can't handle the morons in the administration," is often heard
among officers. It is ironic how quickly idealism and trust in the
administration can change . . . often times even before the first
set of uniforms wears out. As a sense of perceived victimization
intensifies, officers become more distrusting and resentful of
anyone who controls their job role. At this point, without any
conscious awareness and certainly without any unethical intent,
unsuspecting officers can begin a journey down the continuum of
compromise.
As the over-invested officer detaches from non-work related
interests or activities, a perceived sense of victimization will
increase. Peer groups, friends, co-workers and potentially their
entire frame of reference of life begins to change. By itself,
feeling like a victim is by no means equivalent to being ethically
compromised. However, feeling like a victim (whether real or
imagined) is the first stop on the continuum of compromise.
Acts of Omission
When officers (or anyone for that matter) feel victimized, in
their own mind they can rationalize and justify behaviors they may
not normally engage in. "Acts of Omission" occur when officers
rationalize and justify not doing things they are responsible for
doing. At this point, officers can feel quite justified in not
doing things that, from their own perspective, appear to "even the
score." "If they (whomever it may be) don't care about us, why
should we care about them." Acts of omission can include selective
non-productivity (ignoring traffic violations or certain criminal
violations, etc.), "not seeing" or avoiding on-sight activity,
superficial investigations, omitting paperwork, lack of follow up,
doing enough to just "get by" and many other activities which
officers can easily omit. "You will never get in trouble for the
stop you don't make!" typifies the mind-set of officers during
this stage.
This results in decreased productivity and produces passive
resistance to organizational mandates. "Acts of Omission" rarely
face critical scrutiny from peers who themselves are frequently
experiencing the same sense of victimization and socialization
process. Peer acceptance and loyalty become more important than
following some arbitrary set of professional principles. The
perceived sense of being victimized can allow officers to
rationalize and justify other acts of omission such as not
reporting another officer's inappropriate behavior (sometimes
regardless of how extreme or criminal the behavior may be).
Acts of Commission - Administrative
Once officers routinely omit job responsibilities, the journey to
the next step is not a difficult one to make . . . "Acts of
Commission - Administrative." Instead of just omitting duties and
responsibilities, officers commit administrative violations.
Breaking small rules, that seem inconsequential or which stand in
the way of "real police work" is the first step. This can set the
stage for continued progression down the continuum. Acts of
administrative commission are seen in many ways . . . carrying
unauthorized equipment and/or weapons, engaging in prohibited
pursuits and other activities, drinking on duty, romantic
interludes at work, not reporting accidents and firing warning
shots are just a few examples. Department sanctions are typically
the only risk that officers will face at this point. For most
officers this is the extent of their personal journey down the
continuum of compromise. Acts of omission and acts of
administrative commission are significant in terms of professional
accountability and personal integrity. When discovered, they can
erode community trust and damage police/community relations.
However, they rarely place officers at risk for criminal
prosecution. The initially honest and highly motivated officers
can now rationalize their behavior along the lines of "I'm not a
naive rookie out trying to change the world . . . I know what it's
really like on the streets and we (the police) have to look out
for each other because no one else will."
Acts of Commission - Criminal
Unsuspecting officers can unwittingly travel to the next and final
stage of the continuum . . . "Acts of Commission - Criminal." In
the final stage on the continuum of compromise officers engage in
and rationalize behavior that just a few years before could not be
imagined. At first, acts of criminal commission may appear benign
and not terribly different from acts of administrative commission.
Evidence that will never be of any use is thrown away instead of
being turned in, overtime or payroll records are embellished,
needed police equipment is inappropriately purchased with money
seized from a drug dealer, expecting "a little something in the
envelope" when the officers drop by are but a few examples that
officers have easily rationalized. "What the hell, we put our
lives on the line and they owe us". A gun not turned into evidence
and kept by the officer can become "it's just a doper's gun anyway
and would probably be used to kill some innocent person or even a
cop." Theft and misappropriation of seized assets is a problem,
but it's not "like real theft where there is a real victim, nobody
is getting hurt but the dopers, what's the big deal?" The "Loyalty
versus Integrity" dilemma can permit criminal actions to develop
into conspiracies . . . whether other officers are actively
involved or passively remain loyal and accept what takes place.
Now, the risks are far beyond just administrative reprimands or
suspension . . . officers face being fired and criminal sanctions
when they are caught. The initially honest, dedicated, above
reproach officers now ask, "where did it all go wrong," "how did
this happen" as they face the realities of personal and
professional devastation and criminal prosecution. Officers who
reach the final stage did not wake up one day and take a quantum
leap from being honest hard working officers to criminal
defendants.
Entitlement versus Accountability
Officers can develop an overwhelming sense of victimization and an
intense resentment toward the supervisors and administrators who
control their job-role. This can lead to another dilemma . . . a
sense of entitlement. Entitlement is a mindset that suggests "we
stick together" and "we deserve special treatment." The off-duty
officer who is driving 30 mph over the speed limit and weaving in
and out of traffic who tells his passenger, a concerned co-worker,
"Relax, I have Mastershield!" implies a sense of entitlement and
feeling of impunity. Entitlement allows both on and off duty
officers to operate with the belief that many of the rules don't
apply to them. "Professional courtesy" goes far beyond just giving
another officer a break on a traffic violation. Officers are
constantly faced with the dilemma of "doing the right thing" or
"doing what they know is right." The only way to change this sense
of entitlement is to foster an environment of accountability . . .
both organizational and personal accountability.
Loyalty vs. Integrity
Most officers want to be known as loyal and a man or woman of
integrity. A problem occurs, however, when a sense of
victimization and over-identification with the job sets into
motion the dilemma of "loyalty versus integrity" (Mollen
Commission, 1994). Here is where officers called in to Internal
Affairs and asked questions about another officer lie, many times
about a minor issue. When this occurs, the officer has traded
his/her integrity for "loyalty" to a fellow officer.
Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies across the country can
give many examples of "innocent" officers not telling the truth in
an attempt to protect a partner or co-worker, only to find
themselves facing serious or career ending discipline. Early
exposure to such statements as "How will the department find out
about it if we all hang together?" "Cops don't snitch on other
cops" can help foster the "loyalty v. integrity" dilemma that
officers will likely face during the course of their careers.
What Can Be Done?
When officers are ill-prepared to face the ethical dilemmas to
which they will be exposed and unaware of the continuum of
compromise, they can blindly and over a period of time allow mild
job frustration to develop into pathological anger and rage . . .
leading to devastating consequences. This progression is clearly
predictable and is often preventable. The time and resources spent
preventing ethical compromise through credible instruction and
proactive supervision is infinitely smaller than what it takes to
conduct internal and criminal investigations, convene
investigative commissions or restore community trust and repair
police/community relations.
If law enforcement agencies are going to foster an atmosphere of
unreproachable ethics, they must implement a comprehensive
strategy throughout the agency. Officers have to be aware of and
accept the "Continuum of Compromise" as a potential reality that
can effect all members of the agency. They must learn skills to
help them change the "Victim Perception" and internalize a
"Survivor Mentality." Teaching officers to appreciate and
understand the difference between what they do and do not control
is essential for creating ethically sound officers. Strategies for
accepting the fact that officers do not control their police role,
but do have absolute control over their integrity and
professionalism have to taught and practiced.
While the ultimate responsibility for behaving in an ethical
manner lies with the individual officer, management shares some
responsibilities. Supervisors have to recognize and proactively
address potential ethical violations before major problems
develop. Supervisory acts of omission occur frequently. Not taking
care of the "little things" can ultimately be devastating to
individual officers and organizations as well. Supervisors need
practical skills, a willingness to use these skills and they have
to be held accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities.
Supervisors, commanders and chief executive officers have to
appreciate their own vulnerabilities and the mixed messages they
sometimes send. They do not have the luxury of simply talking
about ethics . . . they have to "walk the talk" and be day-to-day
role models. Unethical behavior by supervisory and command
personnel only models unethical behavior and sends the message,
"Do as I say, not as I do." Is an executive-level officer who
registers at a police conference (at taxpayer expense) and plays
golf instead of attending the conference any less unethical than
the line officer who is unavailable for calls because he/she is
conducting personal business on duty? Politics, organizational
history or institutional traditions should never be used to
rationalize or justify unethical behavior. As long as what goes on
in the department is inconsistent with what is being taught, any
ethical training program will be nothing more than lip service and
a waste of valuable time and resources.
The "continuum of compromise" can be found at all levels of an
organization. Ethics training and a commitment to the highest
level of professional and personal integrity apply to all members
and have to be consistently demonstrated throughout the
department. If law enforcement is to enjoy, maintain and in some
jurisdictions regain the status of a respected profession in our
society, it has to change the way it approaches integrity and
ethical issues. A sincere organizational commitment and meaningful
training has to focus on preventing small incidents from
developing into major situations with potentially devastating
consequences.
Despite the headline stories, law enforcement organizations can
regain lost trust, improve police/community relations, protect the
reputations of good, hardworking and ethical law enforcement
professionals and help prevent officers from destroying their
professional careers and personal lives. Ethics training can no
longer be seen as window dressing that makes good press after an
embarrassing incident hits the front page. The topics of ethics,
integrity, compromise and corruption have to become as important
as other critical areas of law enforcement training if significant
changes can occur. By making a serious commitment and taking a
proactive role, organizations can look forward to spending less
time investigating, disciplining and prosecuting officers for
unethical or criminal behaviors.
|