Does discipline fairness matter for the police code of silence? Answers from the US supervisors and line officers

Abstract

Purpose -Following the theoretical model of reporting and disciplinary fairness developed by Kutnjak Ivković and Klockars (1998), the purpose of this paper is to use a survey of US police officers to explore empirically the contours of the code of silence and the potential relation between the code and perceptions of disciplinary fairness. Design/methodology/approach -In 2013-2014, a police integrity survey was used to measure the contours of police integrity among 604 police officers from 11 police agencies located in the Midwest and on the East Coast of the USA. The questionnaire contains descriptions of 11 scenarios describing various forms of police misconduct, followed by seven questions measuring officer views of scenario seriousness, the appropriate and expected discipline, and willingness to report misconduct. Findings -The results point out that the code of silence varies greatly across the scenarios, both for supervisors and line officers. While the supervisor code and the line officer code differ substantially, they are the most similar for the scenarios evaluated as the most serious. Compared to the respondents who evaluated expected discipline as fair, the respondents who evaluated it as too harsh were more likely to say that they would adhere to the code. On the other hand, compared to the respondents who evaluated discipline as fair, the respondents who evaluate the expected discipline as too lenient were as likely to adhere to the code. Research limitations/implications -The data were collected online, resulting in a lower response rates those typical of traditional paper surveys. Practical implications -The results of the research allow police supervisors interested in the controlling the code of silence to assess where the code is the weakest and easiest to break. Furthermore, the findings suggest to the supervisors who want to curtail the code that the strategy of meting out discipline perceived by line officers as too harsh will potentially only strengthen the code. Originality/value -Whereas the study of the code of silence has started several decades ago, empirical studies exploring the relation between the code of silence and perceptions of disciplinary fairness are rare.

A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Academy Socialization on Police Integrity

“…The paramilitary training model and construction of masculinity may also influence how some recruits, especially women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual officers, perceive the motivations of those who engage in behavioral corrections. Heterogeneity in cognitive schemas of fairness may help explain some of the inconsistencies in the literature (see Kutnjak Ivkovi c et al, 2016).…”

The Quagmire that is an Unwillingness to Report: Situating the Code of Silence Within the Chinese Police Context

“…Few studies examine the intersectional nature of organizational, environmental, and individual factors and how each shape police integrity. In fact, across the dozens of studies on police integrity, only a small sample examine these factors through a more nuanced analytical approach (see Ivković, 2012; Ivković, Mraović, & Borovec, 2016b; Ivković, Peacock, & Haberfeld, 2016; Ivković & Sauerman, 2016; Kane & White, 2009; Lobnikar et al, 2016; Pagon, Lobnikar, & Anelj, 2004; Torstensson-Levander & Ekenvall, 2003; Vallmüür, 2016; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). What follows is a brief overview of the state of research concerning the individual, organizational, and environmental factors.…”

“…This assessment of the state of research is particularly salient within studies documenting the state of integrity within police agencies and increasingly so among those studies replicating the integrity scale created by Klockars and his colleagues (2000). In fact, much of this body of research has provided tremendous insight into observed differences across organizational ranks (Ivković, 2012; Ivković, Peacock, & Haberfeld, 2016; Lim & Sloan, 2016), although absent from these studies were an emphasis on the salient individual and contextual factors associated with different decisions. For instance, officers’ age, marital status, community assignment, and agency location (regional difference) are factors that have been rarely examined about their potential influence on police integrity, as reflected by such outcome measures as officers’ evaluation of misconduct seriousness and their adherence to the code of silence.…”

Understanding Subgroups Within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Community and Department Perceptions with Recommendations for Change

“…Other research suggests that the code of silence is somewhat conditional on the seriousness of the behavior and perceptions of fairness of discipline. More-serious misconduct is less likely to be kept secret while overly harsh punishments increase the likelihood of secrecy, and these patterns are similar across supervisors and nonsupervisors (Ivković, Peacock, and Haberfeld, 2016). To deal with the street environment, officers might be suspicious of most citizens and feel that it is important to "maintain the edge" over citizens in interactions or to establish control at the beginning of encounters.…”

“…Additionally, interviewees had concerns over the use of force, shootings committed by deputies, and a code of silence as potential ways to enhance status within the group. Instead of relying only on increasing punishment to resolve these issues, which can backfire (Ivković, Peacock, and Haberfeld, 2016), a focus on peer intervention draws from the idea that prevention is the best medicine and emphasizes that anyone can intervene with anyone else to protect their career, health, or safety. There is likely substantial distance in LASD between those who ostracize and those who are ostracized, but our interview and survey findings suggest that there is a large middle ground of people who are respected and could also recognize the need to intervene.…”