Any officer of the law is expected to be above suspicion and present themselves as a stalwart example to the community they protect. Corruption in law enforcement is supposed to remain rooted in fictional stories and television and films that are made to entertain the masses. It is unfortunate then that the truth is that the depiction of corruption in law enforcement within the fictional boundaries has a very solid, realistic base from which to work. Despite their trusted and respected roles in their communities, police officers are not immune to temptation. Accepting gratuities are among the worst violations that any officer can commit in the line of duty.
Gratuities are more commonly associated with service jobs such as those that exist in the food and hospitality industry. They are a means of supplemental income that is not required but in some cases is expected as a compensation for time and effort spent. Police officers are not allowed to accept gratuities of any kind be it a free cup of coffee or a substantial amount of money for services rendered. As a servant of the general public they are expected to uphold the law and in doing so deny any and all gratuity that might be offered to them. While they do serve the community their role is to uphold the law, not bend it when they see fit.
While it is not an uncommon practice among some precincts to accept reduced cost or
even free items or services for showing preferential treatment, it is against the code of ethics that
officers are sworn to uphold. As noted by Prenzley, Beckley, Bronnit, and Saunders (2012),
many police officers will not think twice of accepting a free cup of coffee, a slice of pie, or any other small, seemingly innocuous item that is given to show preference for officers. This is however strictly cautioned against as it begins the slide down a slippery slope that can and does sometimes eventually lead to larger, more pronounced bribes for actions that could lead to dismissal and even incarceration. The price of showing any type of extra preferential treatment in exchange for goods or services is considered gross misconduct on the part of the offender, and comes with harsh consequences.
The practice of offering a “policeman’s discount” that is still upheld by several businesses nationwide is a time-honored tradition that goes back to the early 20th century and perhaps even further. In the earliest days as now it is meant to be a solemn gesture by several businesses to say “thank you” to police officers for the services they provide by offering discounted goods and/or services. While it does undermine the very nature of the law that officers are meant to serve, it is in this light meant as little more than a sincere pledge of gratitude. Despite its benevolence however this practice still serves to shine a spotlight upon the iniquities of law enforcement in how officers conduct themselves within their communities.
Lee, Lim, Moore, and Kim (388) contend that corruption is a serious detriment to police officers and their vulnerability to kickbacks, bribes, and any other gratuities is the effect that society has upon their profession. The rate of pay for many police officers can vary from what is considered barely a living wage to a very comfortable living. According to Johnson (158) pay differs in regards to position, experience, education, and location. Higher levels of education can affect pay rate, as can the number of years a veteran has been on the force. Officers are paid a healthy wage in many cases, but like many Americans are not immune to the temptations of living beyond their means.
What is meant by this is that officers interact with many different individuals in their
community and throughout the course of their tenure on the force are likely to be enticed to
“look away” or otherwise show preferential treatment in return for a gratuity. The public opinion
considering whether police officers should be able to accept reasonable gratuities is divided
between those who believe that officers deserve more for the job they perform and those who
believe that public service is its own reward. In the case of illegal activities during which many
cases have been made as to the questionable ethics of those officers who were involved it is
common to note that there is little if any dissent is found in discerning whether an officer should
accept money or goods for their misconduct. Society is not blameless in how police officers are
forced to conduct themselves, and this includes the matter of gratuities that are at times bestowed upon officers.
The standards to which officers are held do not often take into account the level of pressure that society places upon them. Coleman (2016) states that the mere mention of gratuities in any form in the presence of an officer can hurt their reputation. In the society of today and even decades before the act of accepting gratuities as a means of conducting business between the police force and select businesses and individuals swiftly became a perceived norm amongst police officers. The glamorization of this societal interaction with law enforcement soon became the overall perception that was bestowed upon police officers. This in turn tarnished the reputations of the guilty and non-guilty parties alike.
accordance with humanity. Yet social change, as written about by Gilbert and Gilbert (3) can
occur in two different directions. An officer entering the force is typically imbued with the
virtues and ethics that are taught to every recruit and cadet from their first moment in the force to
their last, but after the initial feeling wears off a direction must be selected. Gilbert and Gilbert emphasize that an officer can either change a system, or the system can change the officer (3-4).
Many officers that join the force do so with the intent to serve their community and to
affect change in the manner by which the police force does their job. A good number of those
who serve wish to be the best and to make a difference, but several are easily swayed once it is
realized how much authority they posses and how it can be utilized over the common citizen.
While many officers do not seek to make their way forward by intimidation and the acceptance
of corruption through misconduct and gratuities, several will seek to justify the small niceties
that are afforded to police officers now and again. It is a stretch to imagine that small items and services are capable of leading to large payoffs for services rendered and protection given, but historically a significant number of police officers have been noted to provide their services to those who can afford to pay.
Corruption that occurs in the police force, or anywhere, becomes its own social structure
after a period of time. In becoming organized the corruptible element then establishes norms,
social mores, and a hierarchy that flows from the principle to the sub-systems that are set in place
The value that society places upon police officers is at times conditional and can be
attributed to the convenience that the presence of an officer can afford. Many individuals rely
upon police to settle disputes and display an authoritative presence that can be beneficial at a
given moment. When that convenience has ended however many citizens can be relied upon to pay lip service to the police force when pressured but deride and berate officers when their needs are not being met. Police must often serve communities in which they are thought of as little more than thugs with guns, keeping order amongst those who obey the law only when the alternative is to suffer the consequences.
Those who would bribe police officers with gratuities are generally those who are
engaged in illicit and illegal activities that would otherwise be penalized. While officers are
considered responsible for their actions and expected to be above temptation, the truth
remains that some individuals do not see the harm in taking gratuities for their services. It is an abuse of their authority and a detriment to the force, and can have longstanding consequences for the officer who accepts services, goods, or money from another to serve in a capacity that is outside the purview of their profession. While those who seek to bribe officers with gratuities are at fault for the attempt, the officers must be held responsible and liable for their own misconduct.
As Ivkovic (594) states, it is reasonable to state that few if any precincts are without any form of corruption. It is the acceptance and awareness of said corruption that is necessary in order to bring about reform. Once the problem is realized it becomes noticeable and therefore capable of being contained and possibly negated. As a result of becoming aware of the problem it will then be possible to arrange for new policies to be introduced, new controls to be exercised, and reformation to occur. While corruption is a fact of life that is difficult if not impossible to abolish completely it does not have a place within the professional conduct of a police officer.
The types of misconduct that officers are typically cited and charged for are either
external or internal in nature. External corruption generally takes place outside of the force, such
as in dealings between the officer and those within their community. Internal corruption is thus the situations that might arise between officers in the same precinct. Both types of corruption have been highly investigated throughout the years, casting suspicion upon law enforcement that affects both efficiency and reputation when dealing with the general public.
As Beigel (135-136) points out corruption can take many different forms, but in the terms
of gratuity the act is usually meant to gain the obedience and/or temporary allegiance of the
officer, or officers, being propositioned. In an external case, non-criminal elements that fail to
meet certain statutes or city ordinances might attempt to buy their way out of trouble. Business
owners living in high-crime areas might seek to enlist police protection, and payoffs can even be levied to gain much-needed testimony in legal cases in which the word of an officer can sway the outcome. While it is possible that officers can be and are paid off by criminal factions much of this is glamorized by Hollywood and used for its entertainment appeal. Having a police officer in one’s pocket so to speak is more a product of the movies than reality.
Internal issues are typically far harder to deal with as they involve relations between officers and superiors, and can be far more stressful. This is largely due to the fact that internal struggles within the police force, whether over the acceptance of gratuities or other matters that might arise, can fracture and even negate trust among officers and their superiors. Those who are sworn to uphold the law are notoriously close-knit at times, forming a bond with their fellow officers that is virtually unshakeable in some cases and can be beneficial or detrimental depending upon the situation at hand. Should one officer begin to accept gratuities as a means of protection or other similar services, it is the duty of any officer who discovers this to report that individual without delay.
Unfortunately the bond that forms between officers often prevents this as becoming what
is known as a snitch, or a whistleblower, is not an enviable position. Typically those who inform
upon their fellow officers are those who are amongst the most reviled within law enforcement, as
there is supposedly no chance that they can be trusted with even the slightest indiscretion. In
accepting gratuities officers take their own employment into their hands. By trusting their fellow
officers to say nothing if the misconduct is discovered they are essentially asking for others to
simply “look away” rather than break the bond of fellowship that is shared throughout law
enforcement. Misconduct in law enforcement carries a great many consequences, not the least of
which is the severing of ties between one officer and their fellows when it comes to upholding
the law they serve.
The challenge for most officers, especially those who do not engage in misconduct, is to keep the trust of the people they serve. When officers within a precinct engage in misconduct it is common that a schism begins to develop between citizens and law enforcement agents. Losing the trust of the citizenry is highly detrimental to police officers for several reasons. One among those is that once the integrity of a police officer is in question it is far more difficult to trust their character and their ability to be objective when enforcing the law. When an officer, or a precinct, loses the trust of the citizens that depend upon them it can have ramifications that can affect the entire community, town, or even city over which the officers preside.
It is believed that the truth of the corruption is not so much inherent in the officers that
continue to serve as agents of law enforcement, but the institution that they answer to that has
become the true issue. In any profession there is corruption on a small to grand scale. In addition
there are also levels of tolerance that are understood and employed so as to keep said corruption
(313) the responsibility for the actions of the individual must be accounted for and accepted by
the person making the choice to engage in misconduct, but there must still be the accountability of the system as well. In order to best serve the community and uphold the ethics and morals that are taught to every recruit and cadet it is important that officers be able to trust and rely upon their fellow officers and superiors.
Corruption in law enforcement is not a new issue. The preconceptions concerning gratuities or “free” goods and services that are afforded to officers of the law have been ongoing for as long as law enforcement has been around, if rumors can believe. Some of the first documented cases however did not appear until around the late 19th century, most notoriously in New York City. Since then the corruption that is noted within uncounted precincts across the nation has varied in frequency and severity. Organized crime has become less of a contributor to the corruption of the police than the society that law enforcement is sworn to serve. Over the years officers have been subjected to much more strict and ethically demanding training regimens that are designed to teach them what is expected in the line of duty and how best to resist any and all temptation.
There are a number of different offenses that a police officer can commit that would
count as gross misconduct in the line of duty, but accepting gratuities stands among the worst
and most damaging mistakes. Despite the pressure that society places on officers they are sworn
offering a policeman’s discount, are still against the law and the code of ethics that an officer must uphold. Within the communities they serve officers must be the upright and impeachable figures that keep the peace, enforce the laws, and stand as an example to the community. Despite the dangers and constant challenges they face, police officers are public servants and must forego any added compensation for the services they render.
Works Cited
Beigel, Herbert. “The Investigation and Prosecution of Police Corruption.” Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 65.2 (1974): 135-156. Print.
Coleman, Stephen. “When Police Should Say “No!” to Gratuities.” Criminal Justice Ethics 24.1
(2016): Web.
Gilbert, Steven V. & Gilbert, Barbara A. Police Corruption in the NYPD: From Knapp to
Mollen. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 2016. Print.
Ivkovic, Sanja Kutnjak. “To Serve and Collect: Measuring Police Corruption.” Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 93.2 (2003): 593-650. Print.
Johnson, Richard R. “Police Officer Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Analysis.” Police
Quarterly 23 (2012): 157-176. Web.
Lee, Hoon; Lim, Hyeyoung; Moore, Debra D. & Kim, Jeonglim. “How police organizational
structure correlates with frontline officers’ attitudes toward corruption: a multilevel model.” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 14.5 (2013): 386-401. Web.
Prenzler, Tim; Beckley, Alan; Bronnit, Simon & Saunders, Jason. “Rethinking Police Gifts and
Benefits Policies.” ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security 14 (2012): Web.
Waddington, P.A.J. “Police Corruption.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 4.4 (2010):
313-314. Web.
