Identifying “Bad Apples” and “Bad Barrels”: A Profile of Law Enforcement who have been Decertified for Misconduct and the Departments most likely to Harbor Them
Leslie Lively Mentor: Camille Gibson Justice Studies Department Introduction: It has long been commonly said that most persons who work in law enforcement are “good” and that the problem of police misconduct involves a few “bad apples.” This study explores who those deemed to be “bad apples” or bad officers are and their misdeeds. It also describes former departments or agencies’ context, operations, atmosphere, and community dynamics that may impact the existence of misconduct. While some officers begin their career with an unidentified predisposition for misconduct, others may develop negative behaviors given power in the midst of inadequate positive supervision on the job. These may include perceptions of unfairness from those in the agency and or the public that manifests as misconduct (Reynolds & Helfers, 2019). Indeed, work-related stress may have a greater influence on officer misconduct than direct community dynamics (Eitle, D’Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2014), whereby organizational treatment translates into retributive behavior toward the community (Wolfe &Nix, 2016). Another area of concern includes training and supervision deficiencies and racist department practices, such as is often evident in how officers speak of particular races or ethnic groups (D’Souza, Weitzer & Brunson, 2018). While this effort will capture instances of police brutality, the focus on police misconduct is broader, in that a variety of law enforcement misconduct serves to undermine citizen-police relations. These relations are nevertheless vital to maintaining a safe society, given that law enforcement needs the assistance of citizens to keep communities safe and to feel safe themselves in the venues where they work. This study seeks to describe police officers whose misconduct in law enforcement led to their decertification to work in the field. The aim is to produce a profile of these officers, offer an understanding of how the potential for misconduct may have been missed, and describe contexts and dynamics that seem to facilitate the misconduct. This includes describing the law enforcement organizations where there has been some concentration of officers engaged in misconduct. Materials and Methods: Utilizing a mixed-method approach, descriptive, correlative, and predictive statistics is being done on quantitative data available online through USA Today to produce a profile of decertified officers in recent decades. The locations of the cases are to be displayed via mapping. Qualitative descriptive content analysis is being done of a sample of 50 recent cases over the past five years of negative police and victim interactions for insights on the nature of the engagement. Cases will be selected that occurred in the United States and which have sufficient details in news media, court, and other public reports on the officer and the behavior that resulted in the decertification. Descriptions of officer dynamics and relationships with the community will also be included. Results and Discussion: To date, we have analyzed the 200 decertified officers in 2015 and 2016 in Texas. After identifying the cases in the USA Today dataset of law enforcement de-certifications, we then located news reports for the misconduct details. The officers include low rank and those in leadership, such as peace officers, jailers, commanders, detectives, marshals, and rangers. The reasons for decertification included dishonesty in the line of duty, sex offenses, property/economic offenses, substance abuse, and official oppression. The mean age is 37, which suggests that persons are likely on the job for some time before becoming de-certified. While it appears there is room for more thorough screening of potential hires, this is especially important for larger police departments.
Conclusion(s) or Summary: 90
