Officers engaged …show more content…
For example, it could be within the public’s best interest to remain unaware of instances of corruption so as not to aggravate an already difficult situation. When figures of the law break the law, the public is often quick to discuss the matter and this can lead to a scandal for the department. Once exposed, the public may demand a harsh punishment and challenge the management’s ability to lead the agency. A public outcry or demand for change in management could exacerbate the problem. In certain situations, however, police supervisors, chiefs, and those holding higher positions have the greater knowledge about a particular circumstances may be best suited to resolve the issue and addressing the problem internally may be best for both agency and the public. The more involved the public becomes with the internal affairs of the police departments, the greater incentive law enforcement departments and supervisors may have to downplay or hide corruption entirely in order to avoid the greater and more damaging scandal. The downside of this technique is that a lack of transparency undermines trust and faith in the system.
Police corruption is an ongoing problem due to the inability to know or understand its parameters and the reality that there will always be an incentive to hide …show more content…
As a response to claims of police misconduct alleged by two police officers within the New York Police Department, Mayor Lindsay created a five-member panel to assess the conduct of officers suspected of seeking personal gain through their position of power (for example, accepting bribes or selectively pursuing particular investigations or arrests). The commission confirmed the existence of widespread corruption and grouped the corruption into two types, tagging them: “grass eaters” and “meat