12.2: Noble Cause Corruption

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 81982

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

In most instances candidates of police departments are often motivated by the ability to make a difference. In other words to help the less fortunate, the injured, the victim, and overall to do so in a noble fashion. Caldero and Crank (2004) assert that “noble cause is a moral commitment to make the world a safer place “(p. 17). Again an admirable trait in which to enter the profession.The problem that arises from strict adherence to this cause is when the ends justifies the means rather than compliance with an oath of office. When the use of short cuts supersede due process on a routine basis, there exist a potential for corruption.

At this juncture I draw your attention back to the “Group Think” mentality previously cited in a previous chapter. When a police officer finds herself/himself cloaked in the deception of invulnerability; when cohesion of the group (fellow police officers) takes precedence over sworn obligation; and when he/she falls prey to a rationalization process over duty, often unethical behaviors surface. They surface in-spite of original noble purpose and good intentions that drew the officer to the police calling. Because officers are frequently dealing with violence and the seamy side of life, the rationalization process may favor closure for those victimized over due process for those that violate the law. At this juncture officers are more concentrated on an end result and they may resort to unethical and perhaps illegal methods to protect the victim.

A safeguard provided by Pollock (2010) he suggests when confronted with noble cause corruption the officer should consider the following questions:

Is the activity perceived as illegal?
Is the conduct permitted per departmental policy?
Is the activity perceived unethical or is the activity actually unethical?
Is the activity acceptable under any ethical system, or just utilitarianism?

Succinctly, if it feels unethical or illegal, than it probably is. Agency members should be cognizant that “just because you can, does not necessarily mean you should” conduct oneself in a particular fashion. Judges, Lawyers, and juries often have months upon years to examine officer behavior that is right, but perhaps find that it may not have been the correct action to take.

Josephson (1998) posits “Character may determine our fate, but character is not determined by fate” (p. 2). An alternative view offered by Punch (2009) moves away from the individualist characteristics of ethical lapses to a broader base of managerial shortcomings and systemic organizational failures. In his book, Police corruption: deviance, accountability and reform in policing, he provides case studies of police departments throughout the world. He briefly concludes, resulting from his examination of each agency, that in each of these events always highlight aspects systemic failure and perhaps larger governmental oversight missteps.