Breaches of Ethics in Law Enforcement Due to Gratuities

Introduction 

While carrying out their duties, police officers are supposed to abide by professional standards and Code of ethics, which mostly determines their integrity and honesty. The standards are clear that police officers should remain honest, serve with integrity, and avoid abusing their position (Ivković, 2014). In addition, the standards are clear that staff and officers should avoid soliciting gratuities, favors, and gifts that in any way are related to their roles. The standards are applicable, even when the officers are off duty. However, owing to the nature of police work, it becomes difficult to prohibit officers from accepting gratuities. In that case, police gratuities have proved to be an ethical slippery slope (Prenzler, Beckley & Bronitt, 2013). The following discussion delves on a detailed description with a police officer regarding the acceptance of gratuities in their department. Next, the report discusses the basic arguments against the acceptance of gratuities, and finally, a determination on whether gratuities lead to serious breaches of ethics in law enforcement. 

Detailed Description of the Interview with the Police Officer 

The senior police officer in the traffic department within San Diego revealed during the interview that he has received gratuities and gifts from most residents. However, he admits it was wrong, especially because the department has official policy related to gratuities. The Chief of Police in his department has drafted a written policy that prohibits them from taking any form of gratuities, gifts, and discounts. This includes acceptance of gifts from businesses around and within San Diego, to community members. He came up with the policy, observing that, it was the only way the integrity of the traffic department would be kept free from any form of corruption. According to the officer I interviewed, they felt that they were compelled to the extreme, especially because he keeps an eye on them, and often disciplines them for receiving gifts. The officers are equally reminded to avoid demanding for special treatments because of serving the residents. They should offer to pay for all the services and goods rendered to them prior to taking discounts (Prenzler, Beckley & Bronitt, 2013). 

The officer asserted that they have unofficial code, and that the policy in their department expects them to report any unsolicited gratuities and gifts. They are expected to describe circumstances leading to the acceptance of gratuities. The policy in their department is derived from the Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) model. He revealed that, in often cases, the small gratuities lead to incidences of serious corruption. Although he has since stopped taking gratuities, he observes that, it had become a habit and it was easier for him to accept even a bigger bribe. In return, the people who gave him gifts expected disproportionate favors at the expense of other people. During the interview, he asserted that, for officers to offer services properly, they need the support of the community. They must perceive them as honest people with genuine intentions of fighting crime, and not just a bunch of individuals ready to accept gifts and gratuities. 

Based on the interview, it became evident that, the challenge with gratuities and gifts is expectations. Whenever officers look forward to a gratuity as a way of acknowledging their position, the problem sets in (McCartney & Parent, 2015). Police officers should avoid the line of thinking that the public owes them anything. To end the menace, the officers should avoid showing favoritism towards the one giving gifts. In the same vein, people should avoid expecting special treatment for offering gifts. Although citizens in some cases recognize that officers risk their lives to protect them, they should seek other ways of appreciating them. They should avoid insulting their integrity and intelligence, that the only way to appreciate them is through gifts. 

Two Basic Arguments against the Acceptance of Gratuities 

Following the interview with the police officer, it was evident that, the men in uniform do accept gratuities and are not shy from this act. However, the officer admitted that, the police always aim at improving relations between them and the community (Hodge & Walker, 2013). In that regard, it becomes significant for them to put into consideration, the image they are portraying to the public. The two basic arguments against these habits of accepting gratuities are that, officers appear corrupt and ready to be corrupt, and secondly, it creates the impression of favoritism (McCartney & Parent, 2015). 

Accepting gratuities is potentially an act of corruption. Majority of police officers disagree that, gratuities are given and received without any strings attached. The issue even gets complicated, because the legal opinions have failed to define clearly, what is deemed as an acceptable behavior (Hodge & Walker, 2013). However, acceptance of gratuities leads to corruption. Chances are that, the officers will always take action, expecting to get something. In that case, the officers always strive to let people know that they expect something whenever they respond to their needs. As revealed in the interview, lack of clear-cut guidelines of receiving gratuities end up making officers to cross the ill-defined line (Hodge & Walker, 2013). Notably, the officer admitted that, whenever they accept gratuity, the public interpret it as willingness to be corrupted. For that reason, by taking gratuities, they establish a history of officers accepting things without necessarily paying for them. Considering the officer has no limit on what to accept as gratuity, the public shows doubt regarding those limits. Acceptance of gratuities should be discouraged, as it shows the will to get corrupt, and the act often leads to corruption. 

The second basic argument on acceptance of gratuities is that, it creates the impression of favoritism. Whenever the public see police officers accepting gratuities such as beverages and foods, then the public may interpret it as a way of the provider expecting to get something in return (Davids & Boyce, 2008). In most capitalistic societies such as America, people know that nothing is free. In that sense, whenever police officers take the gifts, they are expected to pay in one way or another. Although gratuities acceptance is never wrong in itself, it portrays unethical behavior. For that reason, officers should avoid accepting gratuities. 

Gratuities Lead to More Serious Breaches of Ethics in Law Enforcement 

Based upon the reading of the topic of gratuities and the interview I conducted from a traffic officer based in San Diego, it is evident that gratuities only lead to serious breaches of ethics within law enforcement. According to class readings, ethics involve standards of honest and fair conduct, and the ability to tell good and proper conduct. Based on police ethics, unethical behaviors leads to corruption, and favoritism (Davis, 2015). Revealingly, the traffic department within San Diego has a policy regarding soliciting and accepting gratuities and gifts. It states that, officers are not allowed to accept gratuities in form of loans, gifts, and free things in matters regarding police business. The officer admitted that he has received gifts and monetary gratuities, which is a violation of ethic’s policy within his department, and one that has left many police executives frowning. According to him, some of the gratuities came from people he helped in dismissing their traffic tickets. Further, some of the gifts came from individuals with business connections with his traffic department. Although in the defensive, and adamant about receiving inappropriate gratuities, the officer responded that, he has been taken out for drinks, and individuals doing business with his police department have invited him for dinner numerous times. 

The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics (LECE) has been revised numerous times, in a bid to capture the way police officers are supposed to conduct their duties and responsibilities. It insists on the need to observe integrity (Davis, 2015). The recent revision of LECE made it easier for officers to remember whenever they are faced with an ethical dilemma. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) did this with the hope that the oath will be observed in all police agencies and by various individual officers (Coleman, 2004). It can be used during the promotion ceremonies, graduation, during swearing in and at the start of training sessions. In line with LECE, acceptance of gratuities amounts to breach of ethics within the law enforcement. It is the first step towards police corruption. Based on slippery argument, once officers accept them, police ethics are subverted and they are opened to additional integrity breaches. In often cases, it is expected that, once officers receive minor gratuities, they will offer the giver special services. Actually, for an officer to receive gift, it is wrong as they are getting rewards for services they are paid to offer. For that reason, receiving compensation in form of a gratuity is unethical. 

Conclusion 

In overall, gratuities within the police service has sparked heated debate, with sections of individuals supporting it as a way of recognizing the sacrifices made by officers in protecting the public, and opponents terming it as outright corruption. During the interview, the office revealed that he has taken gratuities, despite having a policy prohibiting the same. Notably, gratuities open way to corruption, and leads to corruption within the police service. Given that police officers are supposed to observe integrity, receiving gifts and gratuities only leads unethical behaviors. 

References 

Coleman, S. (2004). When Police Should Say “No!” to Gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics 23(1):33-44. Davis, W. L. (2015). Police-Community Relations: Bridging the Gap. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris Corporation 

Davids, C. & Boyce, G. (2008). The Perennial Problem of Police Gratuities: Public Concerns, Political Optics, and an Accountability Ethos. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 3:1, pages 44-69. 

Hodge, S. & Walker, T. (2013). Ethics and Criminal Justice Professions. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice , pages 1-8. 

Ivković, S. K. (2014). Police Corruption. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice , pages 3567-3577. 

McCartney, S., & Parent, R. (2015). Ethics in law enforcement. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. 

Prenzler, T., Beckley, A. & Bronitt, S. (2013). Police Gifts and Benefits Scandals: Addressing Deficits in Policy, Leadership and Enforcement. International Journal of Police Science & Management 15:4, pages 294-304.