Police Corruption In The New York City Police Department

The term corruption simply refers to the use of authority by a police officer to fulfill personal needs or wants. There are three simple criteria for a “corrupt act” which must all happen simultaneously: (1) misuse of authority, (2) misuse of official capacity, and (3) misuse of personal attainment. (Dantzker, 1995). Police corruption falls into two major categories-- external corruption, which concerns police interaction with the public, and internal corruption, which involves the relationships among co-workers within the department. The external corruption generally consists of one or more of the following activities; (1) Payoffs to police by essentially non-criminal elements who fail to comply with stringent statutes or city ordinances,
(2) Payoffs to police by individuals who continually violate the law as a method of making money. (3) "Clean Graft" where money is paid to police for services, or where courtesy discounts are given as a matter of course to the police. "Police officers have been involved in activities such as extortion of money and/or narcotics from narcotics violators in order to avoid arrest; they have accepted bribes; they have sold narcotics. They have known of narcotics violations and have failed to take proper enforcement action. They have entered into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in some cases have used narcotics. They have given false testimony in court in order to obtain dismissal of the charges against a defendant." (Sherman, 1978)
In any organization that involves mankind in a position of authority there is always going to be a possibility for corruption, the police department is no different. The level of corruption will always vary, depending on the situation and the environment but nonetheless police corruption does have an effect on the United States. Of course the major offenses are of more concern, like police brutality or taking major bribes or hiding evidence, but even the smaller offense, like letting a friend out of a ticket, still show bias and dilutes the trust the public has in the police department.
It is difficult to measure the extent of police corruption due the covertness of the crimes themselves.
In most cases of corruption there is no one to complain since both the officer and the person paying the officer are guilty of a crime. Surveys have found that only five percent of those approached by a police officer for a bribe report the activity to the police (Walker & Katz, 2010). A study done by James J. Fyfe and Robert Kane on the New York City Police Department from 1975 through 1996 found that very few officers were found to have been involved in corruption or other forms of police misconduct. The data indicated that 1,543 officers out of about 78,000 had engaged in career-ending misconduct, which represented about two percent of all officers employed over the period (Walker & Katz, 2010). One must also take into account that when something happens and is determined to be a result of police corruption or misconduct that it does not mean that it is the whole department or the entirety of the police force. In every organization there is always one or just a few bad apples and unfortunately the actions of those individuals are the ones that are focused on by the
media.
Police corruption and misconduct happens in virtually every police department at some level but one police department that seems to be notorious for police corruption and misconduct is the New York Police Department (NYPD). One specific case involving police misconduct and corruption happened in New York in October 2011 when 16 NYPD police officers were charged with offenses related to ticket fixing. The charges, detailed in a huge stack of paper made up of nearly two dozen indictments with roughly 1,600 criminal counts, include hundreds of instances in which 10 of the officers allegedly fixed traffic tickets. Six other officers were accused of engaging in a wide variety of corruption crimes. Many of the counts were misdemeanors, though all the officers, except for two, were charged with felonies.
Police agencies, in an attempt to eliminate corruption have tried everything from increasing salaries, requiring more training, education, and developing policies which are intended to focus directly on factors leading to corruption. Police corruption cannot simply be over looked. Controlling corruption is the only way that we can really limit corruption, because corruption is the product of the individual police officer, societal views and our culture’s worship of the dollar. Therefore, control must come from not only the police department, but also must require the assistance and support of the community leaders. A way that police agencies can control its corruption problem starts in the hiring process and throughout in the officers’ career. Ethical decisions and behavior should be promoted, because failing to do so makes officers aware of the consequences of corruption and does nothing but encourages it.
Finally, many police departments, especially large ones, have an Internal Affairs unit, which operates to investigate improper conduct of police departments.
These units some times are run within the department or can be a total outside agency to insure that there is not corruption from within the Internal Affairs unit, as was alleged in the 1992 NYPD corruption scandal. Such a unit may be all that is needed to prevent many officers from being tempted into falling for corrupt behavior. However a system of fear is the least effective because there are always those who are willing to risk the consequences. Although the police agency could be the main source of controlling its own corruption problem, support and assistance from the local community is also required. It is important that the public be educated to the negative effects of corruption on their police agency. They should be taught that even 'gratitude’s' (the most basic and common form of police corruption) is only a catalyst for further future corruption. By revamping our system to a code of military like honor, the problem of corruption would fade away. Unfortunately, this is either not going to happen or won’t happen until our country’s citizens rise up against the corrupt overseers. Since this may take a while the community should establish review boards and investigative bodies to help keep a careful eye on the agency. If we do not act to try to control it, the costs can be enormous, because it affects not only
the individual, the department and the law enforcement community as a whole, but society as well. Police corruption can be controlled; it just takes a little extra effort. In the end, that effort will be well worth it to both the agency and the community. (Walker, 1992) The powers given by the state to the police to use force have always caused concern. Although improvements have been made to control corruption, numerous opportunities exist for deviant and corrupt practices. The opportunity to acquire power in excess of that which is legally permitted or to misuse power is always available. The police subculture is a contributing factor to these practices, because officers who often act in a corrupt manner are often over looked, and condoned by other members of the subculture. As mentioned from the very beginning of this report the problem of police deviance and corruption can be solved, it just depends on the people’s willingness to express their anger toward the situation and do something about it. One step in the right direction, however, is the monitoring and control of the police and the appropriate use of police style to enforce laws and to provide service to the public. Concluding the effects of corruption leads to community mistrust and even dismissal of police cases.