Introduction Over the years, theories have been introduced to explain police corruption. The three explanations that banks offer for police corruption are personalistic, institutional or systematic. All these elements can be used to explain different situations depending on the approach taken. The explanation that I agree with the most is institutional. Though personalistic theory has been associated with corruption in all levels of governance, institutional corruption is known to enhance police corruption in different societies (Banks, 2013).
Personlistic corruption is derived from authoritarian institutions. In this case, members of society are denied their rights and privileges as a result of authoritarian organizations. This encourages corruption by police who protect the interest of the wealthy minority as opposed to the majority of the population. Institutional corruption on the other hand is experienced in both authoritarian and democratic societies. In most cases, there is no accountability for the behavior of the police. This gives them leeway to support corruption in various institutions in the economy. Lastly, systematic corruption is similar to institutional corruption in more ways than one. However, this form of corruption is experienced when authoritative persons like politicians manipulate the legal system to suit their needs and requirements. The police are encouraged to act in a corrupt manner because of the introduction of laws which compromise the integrity of a general population (Pollock, 2012).
The reason why I agree with institutional corruption as opposed to personalistic and systematic corruption is because institutional corruption has long implications on societal growth. Institutional corruption undermines the authority that is vested in the selected institutions. This is done when law enforcers ignore legal regulations and policies due to interference from influential people (Reviews, 2013).
From my personal experience, institutional corruption advances police corruption the most because there are no ethical and legal ramifications for people who disobey the law. As such, there needs to be check and balances on law enforcers in order for justice to prevail. It is harder to fight against institutional corruption because corruption trickles down from the top level management to the bottom. In turn, the police force is forced to hide the fraudulent activities committed by people at the top of the ladder (Banks, 2013).
An example that best explains a personal account of this issue is when the traffic police unjustifiably stopped my car. The officer did not follow the correct system of questioning and rushed straight to implicating me as a traffic offender. The police then continued to give me a traffic ticket for over speeding which was not the case. In a just society, a citizen is encouraged to defend themselves against the allegations. In this case, I was forced to pay for a ticket which I did not deserve (Pollock, 2012).
With respect to a recent media report, the case that best explains this theory is the unfair shooting of Michael Brown. The police have not been held accountable for their actions by the court system. This shows that the court system and the police work together to cover corrupt dealings performed by law enforcers (Reviews, 2013).
To summarize, the law has been compromised considering the fact that the constitution should protect citizens in different communities. Therefore, institutional corruption is supported by top level leaders to people in the bottom. This encourages the police to act in a corrupt manner without facing any repercussions.
- Banks, C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
- Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
- Reviews, C. T. (2013). Studyguide for criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice by banks, cyndi. S.l.: Academic Internet Publish.
