Answer

Managing Unethical Police Department and its Challenges

Introduction

It is always a great challenge to manage an ethical police department; this is because of the nature of the criminal justice cases and situations that the department faces. The police department is governed by a code of ethics, moral conduct that advocates for professionalism, and ethical systems that keep the police philosophy and culture in place. However, various ethical challenges and dilemmas confront the police department and officers besides other occupations and organizations. This paper uses Trautman’s corruption continuum to explain how an institution can end up being corrupt, and how COMPSTAT can contribute to it. It further evaluates Bandura’s view on the impact co-workers have on personal conduct and its relation to police supervision. It also evaluates the continuum of compromise and its relation to personal police misbehavior and how it may guide supervisors to identify cautionary signs. Lastly, it evaluates self-regulation as explained by Bandura and how law enforcement job precepts can make an individual turn away from it. It concludes by recommending a policy that prohibits patrol officers from receiving gratuities.  

How Organization become Corrupt by Trautman’s Corruption Continuum and how COMPSTAT can Contribute to it

Corruption is a very persistent human society’s feature and vulnerable vice that greatly affects the nature of the police work. There is utmost need to find out how to mitigate factors that contribute to corruption and restore ethical and moral values that promote professionalism and moral conduct at work (Koller, Patterson, & Scalf, 2014). Issues of inequality, employee conflicts, poverty, poor remuneration, etc. exacerbate the existence of corruption, mostly in the police department (Taylor, 2015). According to Trautman’s corruption continuum, an organization can become corrupt first and foremost if it suffers from moral insanity, which means the organization’s inability to recognize the clear existence of corruption in its administration. It further begins when organizations remain indifferent to working ethics, employee moral conduct, and integrity; organizations become corrupt when the leadership becomes treacherous especially on both the cause and remedy to corruption (Trautman, 2000).

In the same breath, an organization can become corrupt when they conduct poor employee recruitment with poor role models; when are faced with political influence when it permits misconduct from leaders and lacks accountability (Kesic, 2012). Moreover, organizations become corrupt when they practice a code of silence; ignore the personal needs of their staff, and practice poor employee retention and promotion strategies (Trautman et al., 2018). Furthermore, corruption takes place when the staff within the organization starts doing somewhat unethical acts that escalate to the entire organization including the top leadership (Cortrite, 2007). Corruption is also contributed by incentives such as COMPSTAT which contribute to the sharing of information of different nature and manipulation of data and number of arrests by the police to be considered good at work (Lopez, 2015). This brings out the accountability challenge, which is one of the major causes of corruption.

Bandura’s view on the impact co-workers have on Personal Conduct and its relation to Police Supervision

Bandura views learning as an intricate and interactive process that is greatly influenced by various factors from different employees in different working departments. His social learning theory explains how co-workers can influence individual behavior which is learned mostly through socialization, and social communication (Bakker, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Sanz Vergel, 2016). When people associate, they are always eager to learn things which they have no direct experience; this is done through observing the actions of others and listening to what they say and how they say it. They can also learn new information and strange behaviors of other people and thereafter find ways to exercise them at the workplace (Jungert et al., 2013).

People are therefore influenced to learn both good and bad things hence develop an attitude that makes them behave in a particular manner. For example, some people embrace trustworthy behavior, hardworking spirit, and etiquette when they feel treated in the same manner by co-workers (Van Craen, 2016). This influences the police to develop an idea on how to carry out new behavior and when to execute it objectively in their operation. Some police act ethically because of the ethical behavior they learn from their co-workers or the public (Paillé et al., 2016). This has influenced the way the police carry out their duties objectively and ethically; positive behavior from people influences their moral conduct while negative behavior influences them to act in bad faith which is unethical (Ortmeier, & Meese, 2010).

The Continuum of Compromise and its Relation to Personal Police Misbehavior and How it May Guide Supervisors to Identify Cautionary Signs

The continuum of compromise highlights the ethical path that helps the police to find the middle ground in understanding and handling ethical dilemmas they face in the line of duty (Martin, 2011). It is mostly used in law systems to implement ethics in the training of employees; it also tries to find out how high integrity and ethical standards individuals end up as criminal defendants Lentz et al., 2021). Understanding the continuum of compromise helps and prepares the police mentally to assume their responsibility and make informed and appropriate legal and ethical decisions professionally. However, a “continuum of compromise” makes officers develop a perceived sense of victimization over a given period of time due to department rules, policies, and injunctions from chief commanders that rob them of their integrity and freedom to make informed decisions (Fligstein, & McAdam, 2011).

Continuum of compromise brings about over-investment that links employee’s sense of self-worth to their roles as police officers. When individual over-invests in his or her profession vis-à-vis personal lives, resentment tends to be the means used to realize the end result (Fligstein, & McAdam, 2011). This makes the officers detest and resent their roles which they once chose, natured, and relished. Furthermore, it brings about a loss of control over other aspects of lives for the officers; it also brings about justification and rationalization of acts of omission in their duties, accountability challenges, and lack of integrity and professional loyalty as expected (Grant, 2018). These signs are communicative in nature hence they send a signal sign to the supervisors as warning signs of the continuum of compromise (Wallace, 2007).

Self-regulation as Explained by Bandura and how Law Enforcement Job can make an Individual Turn away from it

Bandura believed that human beings are capable of controlling their behavior through the self-regulation process. He defines the self-regulation process as self-observation, self-response, and self-judgment that an individual encounters with his or herself (Benight, & Bandura, 2004).   Bandura held the view that human behavior is extremely motivated and controlled by one’s ongoing personal exercise of life and self-influence (Tougas et al, 2015). Self-regulation, therefore, calls for self-monitoring of an individual’s behavior, evaluation of the same behavior in line with individual standards and situational analysis, and lastly by effective self-reaction (Bandura, 2005). It further incorporates self-efficacy and moral conduct that has a pivotal role in the exercise of rational thought, attitude, and the consequences of one’s actions. In a nutshell, self-regulation theory deals more with self-freedom, self-directed change, and influence of one’s behavior and motivation.

Enforcement of law sometimes calls for use of force and firearms which prove to be a threat to human life, such conditions can make one turn away from self-regulation and embrace the demands of the law at all times (Clifasefi,  Lonczak, & Collins, 2017). It also contributes to police-citizen rivalry and brings positional authority into existence; this could result in abuse of power and use of deadly force, which makes one keep off from self-regulation in order to save his life (Tougas et al, 2015). Lastly, enforcement of law helps in restoring sanity and protection of democratic system of living which suppresses crime in both legal and moral ways. This promotes the common good of all as expected by the law (Bandura, 2005).

Recommendation of a Policy that Prohibits Patrol Officers from Receiving Gratuities

Policies are very important in police working departments; they help police officers to make informed choices, keep a good corporate image and act as a point of reference in critical situations (Ritchie, & Jones-Brown, 2017). They make sure law enforcement agencies always act in line with the given legislation. They, therefore, enhance accountability which contributes to the building of trust between the police and the people they serve (Reaves, 2011). Police officers are professional officers who are expected to act not just professionally but also morally. They are supposed to keep off vices that erode the society’s moral fabric and public confidence; gratuities promote a slippery slope and a potential gateway for corruption (White, 2008).  Furthermore, gratuities promote inequality and subvert the system of justice; they are unethical and go against the utilitarian theory hence would not be morally permissible for police officers to accept.

A policy that forbids patrol officers from accepting gratuities is very recommendable because as a law officer, the police’s primary duty is to protect the community against deception, vices, respect the constitutional rights of the citizens and promote integrity at all times (Reaves, 2011). A policy that forbids the police from taking gratuities will, therefore, protect the integrity not only of the police but also of the society at large; this helps them to give priority to the common public interest (White, 2008). It also reduces public complaints and promotes a good corporate image of the police force. Lastly, such a policy will ensure police officers always act in accordance with the code of ethics and in a manner that promotes professionalism and builds public trust. It further advocates for respect for laws and regulations, people, the environment, and prevention of organizational conflicts, hence promoting a conducive working environment and police working relationship (Ritchie, & Jones-Brown, 2017).