As with many disciplines, theories about how police corruption comes about have flourished over the years. The three theories that are often in evidence in the criminal justice field are the society at large theory, the structural/affiliation theory and the rotten apple hypothesis. Each of these theories takes a different perspective about how police corruption comes about and each holds merit in its own right.
The society at large theory, brought to light by O.W. Wilson, maintains that the societal structure is at fault for police corruption. Under this particular theory, police corruption is the result of certain prevalent actions of society. As Wilson explained it to citizens of Chicago, “the same kind of special consideration” that citizens were “buying for small amounts, could, by the same logic, be purchased by criminals and crime syndicates for larger amounts” (as cited by Delattre, 2006, p. 79). When a citizen, as a matter of hospitality or in exchange for some small consideration or favor, gives an officer a gratuity, that citizen has contributed to the corruption problem by opening the door for an officer to then accept larger amounts or goods in exchange for bigger favors. Another similar belief within the society at large theory is that officers become corrupt because of a belief that other sectors of the system are corrupt. If, for instance, officers see judges taking bribes to thwart justice, they might come to the conclusion that if a judge can do profit from such behavior, so too can they.
The structural/affiliation theory, first presented by Arthur Niederhoffer, states that officers become indoctrinated into corruption by watching the actions of veterans and superiors. Officers do not start out corrupt, but the deviant behavior and the response to such behavior in the law enforcement field starts a corruption cycle. Rookies are taught the behavior, and the acceptance of such behavior, by veterans who learned the behavior from yet others, and if not stopped, the rookies will later pass the behavior on to an entirely new crop of officers. Another important element to this theory is the belief that secrecy acts as a breeding ground for corruption. Corruption, under this theory, must be countered by external remedies such as civilian review boards. So long as departments are not open to outside review, there is no one that has the resources needed to stop the corruption cycle and so new officers will take a look around, see that it’s the norm and is accepted, or at least ignored, and then participate in the behavior (Delattre, 2006).
The final widely accepted theory is the rotten apple hypothesis. This theory maintains that police corruption is the result of putting into a policing position individuals with an already established propensity for corruption. Subscribers to this theory believe that “indiscriminate hiring, inadequate training and poor supervision” erode personnel standards which ultimately results in widespread corruption within a department (Delattre, 2006, p. 85). The remedy according to this theory, then, would be to put in place stricter guidelines for hiring, more training and larger doses of supervision.
As time has shown, none of these theories are mutually exclusive. That is, none of these theories in practice operate completely independent of the others. The most effective means for dealing with corruption is to not be blind to the potential merits and pitfalls that each theory gives. The answer to corruption, likely, lies in a combination of these theories.
Reference:
Delattre, E. (2006). Character and cops: Ethics in policing (5th ed., pp. 10, 79, 85, 88). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
