According to Pollock (2011), gratuities are valuable items that are received by an individual due to his or her position, and not because of the relationship they have with the giver. For example, businesspeople mostly offer gratuities, such as half-priced meals and free coffee, to the police as a token of sincere appreciation for their work. The ethical concern comes about when the policeman accepts these gifts. Concerns are raised because a series of gratuities transforms what would have been a formal relationship to one that is personal and informal. In this case, when the law is to be administered, personal loyalty issues are involved. The relationship between the officer and the business owner becomes complicated due to divided formal loyalties (Pollock, 2011). The simple act of offering free coffee to police officers may eventually become a price for pardon by the police if one happens to indulge in criminal activities. The police man who regularly accepts gratuity from a corrupt individual will not arrest that corrupt individual because he feels like he is indebted to him due to the frequent offerings of free coffee. When such is the case, the police officer is said to be on the slippery-slope.
Slippery slope defines a situation whereby an individual’s judgment is compromised due to his acceptance of gratuities. For instance, when a policeman‘s loyalty is bought by the gratuities, it becomes bribery. Such a policeman will not perform his duties as it is required of him. Rather, the police officer will highly concentrate in taking bribes. Formal code of ethics restricts taking gratuities (Pollock, 2011). These gratuities will lead to a majority of the police officers going off track in the future. They will end up forsaking their duties for the sake of the bribes. This means that they will start taking bribes as part of protection fee for businesses that demand assurance for protection.
Paycheck is the unjust enrichment argument and the only sincere remuneration for police officers, assuming that they receive fewer wages. It ends up that they have to take gratuities, and bribes (Pollock, 2011). Gratuities help mend the relations between the members of the public and the police department. Business people that offer gratuities are more frequent users of police services, which conclude more payment than a normal citizen or member of the public (Pollock, 2011).
Society-at-large Hypothesis
According to Delattre (2002) if greed is simple, the difference of temptations to which public officials and other people come across, is not. The society at large causes police corruption due to the influences in the police departments. It is customary to tip doormen, chauffeurs, cooks, maids and delivery men with small gifts and gratuities. It is also, natural to include policemen. The level of service depends on these tips. Exceeding the offering of gratuities to policemen to carry out small favors is what makes it illegal. Majority of the policemen make themselves vulnerable to receiving these gratuities. Because of this, businessmen, and the rest of the people in the society at large, readily avail it to them.
Well intentioned and harmless practices, at times, may bring about corruption. This reflects how a police department can be affected due to the desire of ordinary members of the public to buy protection using gratuities (Delattre 2002).
The Structural or Affiliation hypothesis
A young person of high ideals, and little exposure to reality, will likely be involved in corruption due to the influence from the older colleagues who are corrupt. Younger policemen seem to accept gratuities for their own reasons, or they may be influenced by their older counterparts. This influence is brought about when there is mutual trust and reliance to be displayed. If the superiors are unsupportive, efforts to behave honorably due to the likelihood of sanctions, corruption is hard to quit (Delattre 2002).
The rotten-apple hypothesis
According to Dempsey & Forst (2009), not every police officer in a precinct, or a department, is corrupt. This theory asserts that only a few members of a police force are corrupt. This is a theory of corruption in which it is believed that individual officers within the department or agency are corrupt, rather than the organization as a whole. Such corrupt individual police officers are responsible for corruption incidences in the police force. The disadvantage of this is that police commanders will not take action against these few corrupt policemen to uncover and eradicate corruption in the entire police department or precinct.
Delattre (2002) claims that the use of ineffective methods of recruitment facilitates the employment of incompetent and unqualified individuals into the police force. These individuals who are wrongly recruited into the police force do not possess the required competencies for a policeman. Such individuals are very easily compromised and, eventually, end up being corrupt. It is, therefore, wise that all police candidates, including those who wish to work in other fields in the police department, be subjected to a complete character investigation (Delattre, 2002).
References
Delattre, E, J. (2002). Character and Cops: ethics in policing. American Enterprise Institute.
Dempsey, J. S. & Forst, L. S. (2009). An introduction to policing. Cengage Learning.
Pollock, J, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice: ethics in crime and justice. Cengage learning.