Police personnel is mandated to enforce the law, maintain order and serve the public. They are to abide by the rules, regulations and ethical principles even as they expect citizens to obey such laws and account for violations of the same act. In the case of police misconduct, it tarnishes the images of both the officer and the jurisdiction as well. Police misconduct is a societal concern, as such; it results in adverse outcomes such as litigation, distrust by the citizenry and poor police-community relations. It is thus essential for police administrators to understand the cause of occupational deviance among police personnel. This is because, the law, that constrains the behavior of citizens, also applies to those enforcing it.
It is evident that police personnel steal, rob drug dealers, accept bribes, use alcohol and drugs while on duty and ignore when they see other police personnel engage in similar acts. Police deviance or misconduct refers to any inappropriate behavior by any law enforcement officer termed as illegal, immoral or both (Champion, 2001). Examples of misconduct include abusing sick leave, perjuring on reports, corruption, accessing police records for personal use, committing a crime, failing to report the fault of a fellow officer, sleeping on duty and accepting gratuities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An example of a study that utilizes behavioral measures of self-control in determining the extent of low restraint on police misconduct is carried out by Donner and Jennings (2013). Data for this study was collected from a sample of 1935 police officers from Philadelphia Police Department and is analyzed. With new police officer-involved shootings in the U.S, this study was conducted to examine the relationship between low self-control and officer-involved shootings. Results consequently indicate that officers with lower self-control are highly likely to have been associated or involved in police shooting incidences.
The study conducted by Donner and Jennings (2013), indicates that low self-control is significantly linked to officer misconduct. They go further to construct a nine-item behavioral measure of low restraint for example; if any was ever involved in a vehicle accident or if the officer was ever dismissed or fired from a job. The authors also utilize official misconduct measures from the department such as physical abuse or citizen complaints. Donner and Jennings’s findings demonstrate that low self-control is likewise positively linked to having a history of physical abuse complaints, internal investigations, verbal abuse complaints and other general misconduct/deviance. Their results seemingly support Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of self-control and misconduct.
Literature and studies indicate a potential relationship between self-control and police misconduct utilizing self-control theory. To assess the link between self-control and police misconduct, Donner and Jennings (2013) use official measures of fault and a behavioral test of low self-control. These attempts fill in gaps in exploring this relationship by use of steps from the two versions of self-control theory and self-reporting measures of police misconduct. This dissertation efforts investigate whether low self-control is inversely related to police misconduct and if this is so, then which version of self-control theory will best describe police misconduct.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) developed a general theory of crime, purporting to explain the types of antisocial behaviors with central concept revolving around self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue “low self-control is the individual-level cause of crime and is capable of explaining all crimes, at all times, and, many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by the state.” This theory attempts to explain crime as it examines all forms of imprudent behavior like employment records, poor relationships, accidents and drug and alcohol abuse (Hay, 2001). In fact, Gottfredson and Hirschi agree that those individuals with low self-control have a higher probability of ‘smoking, drinking, gambling, using drugs and engaging in illicit sex.’ They refer to these as crime equivalents or in other terms acts analogous to crime. Overall research demonstrates self-control being acknowledged as a determining predictor of criminal and comparable behaviors (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In their perception, crimes are simple to commit, they do not require long-term planning and in fact, provide minimal long-term benefits.
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, like all human behavior, crime is based on benefits and costs. In their theory, it assumes that people make rational decisions to maximize pleasure and at the same time, minimize pain. There are individual indifferences though when it comes to self-control. They, therefore, contend that individuals who lack self-control are highly likely to pursue the pleasure of criminal behavior when presented with an opportunity. They, however, argue that although criminality’s extent varies in different people, self-control suggests that, the varying difference in people is when they are restrained from criminal behavior. They also argue that such individuals are impulsive, insensitive, risk-taking and physical. This makes them experience problems such as drug and alcohol abuse, social relationships like divorce and even accidents. This is what is referred to as the generality postulate of General theory.
The authors concur that self-control is not the only correlate of antisocial behavior or crime, although this lack of self-control still causes similar reactions. There are other factors like individual characteristics and conditions that impact the likelihood of engaging in misconduct. The original version of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory hypothesizes that crime and deviant behavior is a result of low self-control, although the revised version (2004), concepts such as personality trait of self-control to rational choices and decision-making are shifted. A new perspective of self-control is linked to an internal set of factors that influence people’s decisions. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of self-control has generally been tested consistently and can predict various criminal and deviant susceptibility of instances/outcomes in the society.
An example is of a study by National Police research, where data was collected through an online survey of 101 first-line police supervisors within three police agencies in the U.S. Respondents, in this case, are part of the National Police Research Platform and data was analyzed using correlational and regression strategies. The hypothesis stated that measures of theoretical versions significantly predicted police misconduct and in regression, both versions yield effects. To measure Hirschi’s theory, subjects were presented with hypothetical acts of police misconduct and were requested to list potential consequences and their importance. Consequently, as predicted by the hypothesis, results proved that low self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi's general version), was significantly linked to police misconduct. Similarly, the results also suggested that revised self-control is superior to the theoretical version of police deviance
In conclusion, the police docket requires law enforcement personnel to not only exercise authority over citizens but also engage in a multitude of tasks geared towards integrity and proper ethical issues. Much of the work should be beside direct supervision by management as some can be lured into such opportunities for deviance. The finding that self-control is related to police misconduct has policy implications. It is therefore recommended that administrators; increase use of integrity-testing strategies to detect problematic employees, they should utilize quality police training programs as they emphasize on ethics and consequences of misbehavior and finally bolstering their personnel selection and hiring by proper background investigations which must be thorough. They should also not fail to find mechanisms that will strengthen employee’s self-control levels, by studying limitations and strengths of such acts.
References
Champion, D.J. (2001). Police misconduct in America. Santa Barbara , CA: ABC-CLIO
Donner, C.M., & Jennings, W.G. (2013). Low self-control and police deviance: Applying Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory to officer misconduct. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39(3), 707-736.
Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.
