Subcultures are collections of ”norms, values, interests (and associated artifacts) that are derivative of, but distinct from the larger” dominant culture; deviant or criminal subcultures consist of the norms, values, artifacts, and interests that revolve around deviant or criminal behavior (Anderson and Short 2002, 499). Within police departments, supervisors and colleagues who tolerate violent or corrupt behavior set the standard for and encourage misbehavior. Most police departments have a fraternity of officers who find and support each other in their deviant or corrupt activities, as well as in the ideology that rationalizes these behaviors. Police often view themselves as an isolated fraternity, alienated from both the criminals and the public. This alienation is often rationalized by suggesting that the stresses and pressures of the job lead officers to be embittered about the criminal justice system and create an attitude that the ends can justify the means (see especially Kappeler and Potter 2005, chap. 10).
Even if a few officers are responsible for most of the brutal and corrupt acts in a police department, fellow officers’ reaction to the behavior, either overtly or in passive acceptance, allows it to flourish. A common phenomenon termed the ”code of silence” is an excuse for otherwise noncorrupt officers to tolerate the misbehavior of their fellow officers. From very early in their careers young policemen are discouraged from reporting misbehavior by their colleagues, thus creating an environment in which officers act as a type of fraternity or close-knit family. As corrupt NYPD cop Michael Dowd would say, ”You kick some punk down the stairs in front of 10 cops and you have 10 friends, . . . how much bad could you be trusted to see, the old-timers wanted to know, before you ratted on another cop” (McAlary 1994). ”Two cops ['bad apples'] can go berserk, but 20 cops embody a subculture ['rotten barrel'] of policing” (Skolnick and Fyfe 1993, 25).
If an officer arrests a criminal, even though it might not be a technically correct arrest, it is generally acceptable to his colleagues, supervisor, and society that the ”bad guy” be punished. Police perjury is rationalized as hiding technicalities (such as illegal searches), and officers often cover for each other. Judges and juries make it easier because they generally give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Police rationalize their main task as removing criminals from society and often justify violating citizens’ rights as an unfortunate by-product of that goal.
Many rationalize that going ”by the topic” leads to fewer arrests and less jail time for criminals. Police become frustrated by the expansion of laws that provide increased protection of criminal suspects.
Low Salaries and Police Corruption
Low wages provide a popular rationalization for corruption. ”When police see dealers with $300,000 in the back seat of their car and know if they arrest them the court’s going to turn them out anyway, it may seem a better form of justice to hit them in the pocketbook and take their money— especially if the policeman has a big mortgage” (At Issue 1995). The reality that some criminals make much more money than the officers sworn to apprehend them provides yet another rationalization for extorting or accepting bribes from crooks. The New Orleans police have a long history of low pay and corruption. One-third of its entire police force abandoned their posts during 2005′s Hurricane Katrina.
Two independent commissions have been organized to investigate New York’s problems, the Knapp Commission of the 1970s and the Mollen Commission of the 1990s (The Economist 1994). New York police earn relatively low salaries. The Knapp Commission report of 1972 exposed major corruption in virtually every NYPD precinct and found that some corrupt officers rationalized that taking ”clean” money from illegal gambling operations was morally superior than taking ”dirty” money from traffickers who sold narcotics to children.
The Mollen Commission report in 1994 described rampant police corruption, especially in the West Harlem precinct. Officers terrorized minorities in neighborhoods and participated in drug trafficking. One particularly surprising charge was the shooting and serious wounding of a drug dealer when officers stole the dealer’s cocaine supply and $100,000 in cash while illegally searching an apartment. An officer testified that police would keep guns that had been seized from suspects and use them as ”throwaway” guns to plant on suspects in the event of a questionable arrest. The report claimed that officers found to be corrupt were more likely to be brutal (violate citizens’ rights) as well. Perjury by NYPD officers was so common that some officers referred to it as ”testilying” (The Economist 1994).
The central figure in the Mollen investigation, Officer Michael Dowd, organized groups of officers in raids on Brooklyn drug dealers’ apartments for cash and drugs. The officers extorted protection money from dealers and sold cocaine to youths.
Undercover officers are especially susceptible to corruption because of the corrupt nature of the job. Their role involves deception and risk taking, and they often possess corruption-prone personalities, especially if they are undercover long term. Officers start believing the criminals are their friends and become alienated from law-abiding society.
Conclusion
There is little evidence that police departments discourage all types of police deviance and corruption. If a department takes a no-tolerance stance, it may be able to discourage the behavior that leads to corruption. Most departments allow some corruption to exist within the department. Police officers often alienate themselves from society by spending their time almost entirely with other officers. They often do not see their deviant or corruptive behavior as a problem. Potentially deviant or corrupt officers are influenced by their fellow officers and, hence, view their behavior as socially acceptable. Those officers who insist on honesty are often themselves viewed as deviant within corrupt departments.
