Deviant police officers pose trouble for many groups. Among other things, the
problem police officer stains the reputation of police officers in general. They give their
department a bad reputation. And, problem officers fail to provide fair protection for the
citizens they're supposed to serve. Yet, the autonomy given to police officers and the
hidden nature of much police work make it difficult to detect the problem officer. This
article examines a process by which unethical policing can be addressed early on, which
is significant, given the messages sent by a department's failure to address unethical
police behavior in a timely manner. Permitting corrupt officers to continue their unethical
ways without detection sends a message to the officer and other officers that corruption
goes without recognition and punishment. It also suggests to the public that the police
department has limited means to monitor its officers, or it simply doesn't care. Permitting
police corruption may also lead to corrupt officers becoming bolder, and perhaps
engaging in higher levels of corruption. Police accountability comes primarily in two
forms, external and internal. Internal forms include the presence of an effective internal
affairs division; proper recruitment, selection, and training of officers; peer or coworker
pressure; and legislation and department policy that dictates officer behavior. Externally,
civilian review boards and citizens reporting deviant police behavior are prominent
among the means of police accountability. Despite the various avenues through which
police practices are monitored, there are occasions when officers step outside the law.
Early warning systems provide police administrators the ability to assess officer behavior
over a period of time. The additional record-keeping and analyses involved with the data
consume precious police resources; however, there are benefits to removing unethical
officers as early as possible. In a litigious society such as ours, where filing lawsuits has
become increasingly common and easy, early detection helps police departments
proactively identify officers who pose risks to the community. Most officers abide by the
laws they enforce. There are a few, however, who sometimes give policing a bad name.
Police administrators often face difficulty in determining the legitimacy of questionable
police practices. The nature of police work is such that questionable police practices, at
their most basic level, often involve the officer's word against the complainant's.
Occasionally, there is concrete, visible evidence (or a lack thereof), so decision making
on behalf of police administrators is simplified. The discretion inherent in policing in which
officers constantly use their decision-making skill, and the volatile and dangerous nature
of police work dictate that problem officers be identified and reprimanded, trained, or
released quickly. Though today's police officers are more professional, better trained, and
better educated than at any other period in history, accounts of police misconduct will
likely continue but undoubtedly at an much reduced rate. Continued developments in the
field of policing, such as early warning systems, will certainly reduce the likelihood of
corrupt policing. Assigned Article 2 DeCrescenzo, D (2005). Early Detection of the
Problem Officer . FBI Law Enforcement, Vol.74, 7.