Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Dr. Kalam
- United States
- Welcome to our Asynchronous Blog for DSC1006 Introduction to Homeland Security. You should respond to the questions and follow the instructions from our class meetings on Saturday.
Hello Class: Please respond to the following. You are required to respond at least Four (4) times. However, please feel free to post more than that number of times,
ReplyDeleteTake care
Dr. Kalam
Drugs and Police Behavior
One of America’s worst cases of drug-related police corruption occurred in California after an officer caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from a police department's evidence locker turned on his fellow officers to get a reduced sentence.
Known as the ‘Rampart’ Scandal, over a hundred convictions were overturned as police misconduct, ranging from the planting of evidence to “confessions” obtained through beatings was uncovered. Officers were indicted on corruption charges, including torture, murder, drug dealing, and framing innocent people.
The unit's criminal behavior became known as the ‘Rampart Way,’ a term referring to a predominately poor, immigrant neighborhood in East Los Angeles patrolled - and during that time controlled -by the officers.
Questions:
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the explanation for this problem can be explained though cause and effect. If you allow an individual (officer) to commit a crime and that individual (officer) is not properly charged (a lower charge then deserved); the effect would be other individuals (officers) believing they can get away with it and if not, they would get a lower conviction then they are suppose to.
For instance: the police officer in California being caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from a police department's evidence locker, who turned on his fellow officers to get a reduced sentence. It doesn’t directly say he had a reduced sentence; however, it is implied. Therefore, other officers saw what happened and thought the risk was worth it. As a result, over a hundred other convictions, involving police officer’s misconduct was overturned convictions. Resulting in, more corruption.
I don’t recall what individual stated we are criminals however, we have the fear of going to prison/jail for our action. Therefore, if the fear is not there, then temptation becomes more appealing. Resulting in “Rampart’ Scandal” (in my opinion).
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior? Yes, the explanation is greed along with temptation police officer make money but for what they do they want more. In society not everybody can be put in a position of power and control. Reason is the chance doing things such as a criminal activity and getting away with it increses. Money is a major challenge for the weak and challenge officers. so this behavior is common and is a flaw in human being temptation and greed along with abuse of power. This conclude my explanation for this behavior.
ReplyDeleteI believe, it was because of greed. However, I believe the main reason, as stated previously, the bad outweighed the good. The fear was not there; the officers truly felt they would get away with it or else they wouldn’t have done it. They also knew if they got caught, they could ask for help from their fellow officers; resulting in corruption. The quote, “One bad apple spoils the bunch” applies to this situation. Although it does not spoil all the apples, it still spoils some.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t be able to answer whether it is the hiring process because I am unaware of their hiring process in California. However, if they are just hiring people without doing background, physiological, drug examinations, that can be part of the problem. As for the Lack of effective training, again, I am unaware of the type of training that is provided to the California Police. However, that can also be part of the problem. Although, bad hiring practice and lack of effective training can be the result of corruption; I don’t believe that is the reason why these officers did what they did. I am sure it feeds into the corruption however, I feel as mentioned many times they did it because they felt they could get away with it and saw what would happened if they didn’t get away with it.
Answered above was the question.. Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteMaria:
ReplyDeleteGood thought process and response. The response is refering to crime in general and we know that some thoeries imply harsh and certain punishment deters crime. I think that the crime control theories can be applied in this scenrio.
Do you think the penalties should be more severe for police professions?
Lubens:
ReplyDeleteIs it about the money? Or could it be related to the culture of the department?
Remember, if the culture is one that fosters a particular type of behavior, that behavior is normal and htose who deviate from it become outsiders. The pressure to conform can be very compelling. What do you think?
Explanation? Bad people, raised by bad parents in a bad neighborhood. It's a domino effect that has to be traced to its roots to provide a good answer but suffice it to say that these weren't people that should have been hired as cops. And training wont really make a difference with these kind of people.
ReplyDeleteWhen Police officers, who's sole purpose to be in their line of work, go against the law they deserve the worst. Whether they commit crimes against themselves, which is by the way even sicker or the community they deserve to go down, hard.
Do you think the penalties should be more severe for police professions?
ReplyDeleteI do believe penalties should be more severe for police professionals. Due to the fact they have more knowledge and power then a civilian. If you give a profession more power, I feel you that profession should also receive a more stringent penalty.
For instance: when police abuse their power, it has a negative impact not only on that one officer, but also with the police in general. Therefore, having the public judge all police because of one individual.
In my opinion, this is just human behavior, there is a say “everyone has a price let me know what is yours”. Although, we are talking about a police dept. we are still dealing with people. I am sure it started very small and progress from there. Power and control is an unimaginable aphrodisiac. In this case money was the bridge to achieve what every one of us wants to accomplish, the so call success. The measure of success is implied by the materials you accumulate through life, a bigger home in a good neighbor, a new car, kids in private school, a life that as a police officer we cannot have it.
ReplyDeleteI am unable to pin point a excly cause to this behavior but it is a mix of greed, power trip, and egocentrism but most of all lost. As humans we are constant remaind about things we did not achieve instead of we did. There is a misunderstanding about right and wrong, there is always an excuse, he did because blab la blab. Ethics, pride and words like have been substitute by what kind the car you drive. There is no high praise for having a modest life with a good family, to the contrary just look Madoff’s family and some of our nations officials.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteThis is like the same question Dr. Kalam ask me and i said i do feel police officers should have more stringent penalties than the criminals/ civilians in their communities because of the knowledge and the power they have over the communities. For example what I mean by police officers having power is: if a police officer decides to arrest someone, although the individual may not be guilty, that will remain on that individual’s record for the rest of his or her life (regardless). The officer also has knowledge of the laws. Although ignorance of the law is no excuses; in this case we know for sure the officer are fully aware of their actions and that it is against the law. Therefore, we have an individual who is suppose to be enforcing the law and breaking the law.
I just feel that individual should have more harsh and strict penalties. This will hopefully deter other officers from committing crimes.
Jessenia Chavarria
ReplyDeleteYes, there is an explanation for these types of behaviors, and they are human behaviors. As human beings we all face daily with situations where we debate with our inner self to do the right thing. Throughout history, police officers have always had some kind of power against us "regular citizens". These powers, in some ways can influence a human being to start acting and feeling with more authority to do what they want to do, as well as having others do what they told them to do.
As for the Rampant scandal, the officers involved in this case, yes we can said that they were pulled by greed and power and we can also blame the hiring process. This unit was the anti-gang unit for this area, and instead of helping clean this area of gang related issues, it led to its citizens to live in fear and not trusting the police officers. The police officers were treated as the enemy and the citizens were not getting involved/talking to the officers when a crime occurred (since most of the time it was a police officer who was the perpetrator). As for the hiring process they are also to blame, because of their lack in performing the appropriate test, specially the psychological test. Nowadays, to become a police officer you have to go first thru testing and most important the psychological process, if none of these two test are passed you cannot move forward to the academy. If you decide to go to the academy at your own expense you will still need to pass the psychological test in order to be accepted to the unit. There was not a "check of balance" between the supervisor and his team, anyone could have just walk to the evidence department and take the drugs that was being held as evidence or vice versa plant new evidence. There were no regulations, in this department. I do not believe that they were lacking training; after all they all knew the process and laws. The only training that they might have need is the training in Ethical.
In my opinion, yes when an officer commit a crime against their own communities, they should be punished with harder penalties because when they are sworn as officers they are held to a higher standards as their Law Enforcement Code of Ethics states (page 102) the following: "I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held as long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such asct by other police officers...:. Knowing the laws and then taking advantage of the citizens that they are supposed to protect, then yes they should be punished harder.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteOff course, public officials have a particular duty to set and maintain high standards not only when involve crimes against their own communities…all times. The implications of public officials behavior goes far beyond. When a public official commit a crime the whole community is perceived in the same way.
I totally agree with Claudia, as to punishing police officers harder when they are involved in crimes and corruption. They are not above the law.
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to explain this kind of behavior is that the wicked cops are not being supervised. Also problem lies within all police departments. As you stated in class it starts by taking a free doughnut, then the coffee then… I believe that departments need to make better supervision of their policies in this regards and make it easier to terminate those cops who are practicing this behavior.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is because of the greed, bad hiring practices and lack of effect training that creates this kind of corrupted environment. The greedy will find ways to extort money from the use of their powers on the street, sell narcotics they illegal seized, etc. If within the hiring process you overlook this individuals passed troubles or psychological red flags, or the inability to share with their mates in the academy that should be grounds for removal. Lastly, the effective training involved after all these practices have occurred needs to be an on-going process. Keep the moral up by taking time to provide challenging training that also reiterates the importance of feeling appreciated and to uphold law by doing our jobs within the law and doing it honorably.
ReplyDeleteOfficers who commit crimes against their own communities, should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities. Even though laws were made equal to all people, police officers have a higher standard to uphold. They are the ones who enforce the law. Who else knows how to catch the bad guys than them, now when the tables turn, they need to pay the price for it. Just like our US Government, if a US spy is caught for releasing intelligence to another country they are held to the stiffest of penalties. These are the same standards we should include into all of our laws. If the punishment is strong enough, it will deter many of the already corrupted from continuing their illegal activities.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with claudia_david001's input on this. Pride, social stigma, and egocentrism are the leading characteristics that are present in most of these corrupted officers and are the main reasons for their continued behaviors.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is no explanation for this type of behavior. Now I do believe there is one main reason, one would resort to act in this type of behavior/manner, our human nature. From the time we are born up until the time we expire we are submissive to different types of human nature. It’s in our human nature to misbehave, and make mistakes. I say it was in these officers human nature to act out in this way. Maybe it’s humane for them to be corrupt, to lie, to cheat, to steal, etc. Ethically, they have no principals as a police officer. These officers acted out immorally. We would like to think that each officer has good principals and morals. Clearly the officers in the “Rampart Scandal” don’t. Now it’s in society’s human nature to decide how to stop such acts like these from continuing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joel J Flores. He stated: "Even though laws were made equal to all people, police officers have a higher standard to uphold. They are the ones who enforce the law".
ReplyDeleteIt is true also what he said about the US spy. They are "...held to the stiffest of penalties" therefore, we should to the same to the officers who dont abide by law. They are suppose to be the people we cant trust.
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training? This story, I believe the issue is bad hiring pratice and effective training because how can you hire a person with such a bad character like that. Training is also a problem with the individual. The leading cause is corruption bad hiring process this was a bad judge on the hiring staff. To end it off greed maybe had a lot to do with it too.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior? In my opinion, I feel the explanation is when the individual (officer) knows he/she has power all morals go out the window. The individual abuse their power and feel as if they could do whatever they like and not have to pay the consequences.
ReplyDeleteWas it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training? I think greed has a lot to do with it depending on the individual financial status. Also, temptation comes into play if you observe a number individuals (officers) doing corrupt acts and not being caught you want to take part because you’re in over your head financially. I don’t think it’s because of bad hiring practice simply how do you know you’re hiring an individual without morals. When an individual goes to an interview he/she is going to put up their best sell pitch which shows a person with morals. Also, I don’t think it has anything to do with lack of training but more so lack of supervision.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities? I do feel officers who commit crime against their own communities should suffer stringent penalties.
To question number two, of course is was because of greed like the saying goes “money is the root of all evil.” Those officers were only thinking of one thing how to make the next dollar. The only problem was they were trying to make it the quick and easy way. Any street dealer will tell you, quick and easy is not always the best especially when it’s illegal! I’m not going to say that the problem did arise because of bad hiring practices or the lack of effective training. During the hiring process it’s hard to tell what kind of morals or ethics one may have. I say it also leans more towards the mentality of the particular officer. Yes we can implement in-service trainings to each officer but it’s the discretion of each particular officer whether there going to stand behind the oath of the badge and steer away form corrupt and dishonest situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Claudia, officers should be pushined harder when involved in corruption or any other crime.
ReplyDeleteBehavior or what drives people to commit crimes?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to these police officers they were already thugs and they took advantage of a very profitable situation and circumstance of power that was given to them.
Factors that came into play:
1. These police officers were operating under mafia style type of operations.
2. Their targets were vastly the poor, immigrants, people who are very uneducated about US laws.
3. Immigrants distruss Government officals due to deportation fears.
4. We can also bet that language was a barrier for these people to be able to protect themselves.
5. This neighborhood and it's people lent itself to become the perfect targets, victims and patsy to their crimes.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities? In an a way yes, because we are held to a higher standard. We are here to protect and serve not to commit crimes against the society and community we protect. When one of us a law enforcement officials commit such acts against society we lose the trust and confident in them. So yes I believe we should hold them responsible higher because we know better.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure i agree with Jessie; as for the officer already being thugs. Again i am unaware of the hiring process and the requirements in CA. However, i am sure they can’t have a record and according to Miami standards you are obligated to take a physiological and lie detector test. Yes there are few who can pass theses tests that are liars however, not all. I still believe strongly it has to do with what I explained earlier. However, I respect you answer and I do believe that there are officers who are going in for the wrong reasons. And just maybe their requirements are low. Again I am unaware with their hiring process.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is obvious the existence of a very strict and unethical code of silence among the officers involved in the misconducts, which played a vital role in the maintenance of their corrupt activities; they formed a very tight subculture. Also, what I see, due to the amount of wrongdoings occurred in the same police department, is the occurrence of a “contagion effect” (the spreading of an emotion, idea, custom, etc. from person to person until many are affected). How it is possible that so many officers were committing unlawful acts in the same police department?
Since we are human beings the exact explanation of this type of behavior should be individually analyzed; that means, each officer’s misbehavior should be separately analyzed. Each individual has his/her own reasons for doing what he/she did. Likewise, this type of behavior could have many explanations too.
Is there an explanation for this?
ReplyDeleteI believe the officer: 1 did not fear of losing his job. 2 did not have respect for the "uniform" and 3 fell into temptation.
Any other questions?
ReplyDeleteI do believe officers should be upheld to more stringent penalties then the criminal in their communities. Reason being, not everyone can be an officer. Most of the time you have officers who look at their title as an officer as their career. Only a small percent view their title as an officer as their job. So let’s say Officer “A” views his title as a officer as a career, I would say he would be more reluctant to dibble into corrupt behavior, versus Officer “B” who views his title as just a job. With that said an officer who views his title as a career, would want to be upheld to a higher standard or level. Being place on that level comes with major responsibility. How can we look up to the police to help us, if their same ones who are hurting us. We already have enough crooked people to look out for (politicians, executives), now we must look out for the same very people we call upon when were in fear or danger?
ReplyDeleteThis type of behavior is inevitable because we are all human, but of course it all depends on the person's sense of judgement, control, and honor to be tempted to "fast money". So I think this problem is more on the individual's ethics, training, and behavior.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteWe as human beings and not lower class of animals should have a higher thought process or consciousness. Does this mean that every one uses it. We obviously know that not everyone is playing with a full deck but in the case of these officers they were of sound mind.
It is more about the officers intentions and goals; not about what is right or wrong in this case. Reason for not using right or wrong:
1. The fact these officers knew they planned to do wrong. This takes higher reasoning than what you think. Due to the fact that they planned means their actions were not a spare of the moment action. It was an intentional and planned out thought which was then used to conspire, then the actions to make the right or wrong action happen, was carried out. In other words they could have stopped at any moment but chose not to.
2. They choosed an intended target and area
3. Set up & carried out their plans
4. Knew their position of authority and power should not be abused and instead they used this power as a TOOL and WEAPON to be able to commit the wrong doings.
To simply say or justify some act with "is it or was it" wrong or right is a superficial.
Lets focus on the what was the officers true intentions were: to terrorize, conquer and rule an area, it's constituents and resources.
Terrorist use this tactic and this is also used in war to futher a goal or purpose.
Secondly focus on their short and long term Goals: Money, Power and concealment.
These officers went out of their way to ensure long term concealment of their crimes. To ensure concealment they use innocent people to futher their goals.
These officers made sure that any ill gained money or resources could continue to be claimed by them while using innocent people as scape goats. The officers made these people believe there is no way out and you must cooperate or be eliminated.
Terrorist use these tactics as "blame the other guy and do as I say or suffer the consequences" to shift focus and the attention away from their true intentions and to keep their goals safe.
There is no explanation for this type of behavior because everyone has their own kind of drive for criminal acts. Some people, who are poor, steal for survival etc. Who knows, maybe they all did it because they thought that no one would find out. Especially since they worked in a “poor neighborhood” and no one would care.
ReplyDeleteGreed can take over any one at any time especially if the person is deep in a situation where they are convinced that they actually deserve it and are taking what belongs to them.
I think that the hiring practice may have had something to do with it because there were too many dishonest officers involved. Although in every organization you will find dishonest people, it seems like they may have cut corners when they hired these officers. There may have been people on the inside that helped these officers get hired and they did not follow proper procedure in hiring them.
No matter how much training a person can go thru; you still have room for corruption. It all has to do with the type of person you are dealing with. Personalities are developed on morals, values and views.
Officers who commit crimes against their own communities should suffer more stringent penalties. They, out of all people, should know better. It would be hypocritical to not do so. Yes, officers are human. But they took an oath that not everyone in the community did. An oath they should stand for. And the community looks at this type of behavior by an officer as false hope and lose the faith they have in their government.
I think the Rampart Scandal occurred because of ineffective training and lack of supervision. Every officer should be trained how to handle themselves and situations constitutionally and lawfully; and be aware of the consequences that follow if the rules are broken. Supervisors should also be trained more effectively to lead the officers and be more penalized when there is a breach in police behavior.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with MikeCalderon. It does have to do with the individual person and the persons ethics. However, the training has nothing to do with it. You cant train an officer to be "non corrupted". Also, I think that a person who "stands for nothing, falls for anything". So if the person does not have values instilled in him/her, they will easily jump on a bandwagon of corruption.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the officer and the unit involved had to have been doing this for some time. You do not become a corrupted cop overnight. However, he was not afraid of the consequences...so his superior officers must not have been supervising them appropriately or they might have been involved as well.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, not everyone grows up with respect and morals. If you were not taught this as a child it is very difficult to learn them as an adult. Therefore, if these officers did not practice this in their early years, they will definitely not have respect for what they are "suppose to represent in our community" They completely abuse the uniform and their title. Which is why many law enforcement officers have a bad rep. for one bad apple everyone takes it.
Finally, if some officers in that corrupted unit saw everyone else making easy cash, of course, they were tempted. They wanted to have what the others had if not more!
I disagree with Joe Flores in what he stated: “I think the only way to explain this kind of behavior is that the wicked cops are not being supervised.”
ReplyDeleteIf supervision is the only mechanism which prevents us for committing wrongdoings and/or unlawful acts in life, what about our moral, values, and beliefs? … And, particularly, in the case of the police officers, their training?
Completely agree Lilian!
ReplyDeleteTO ALL GROUP STUDENTS:
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the articel I gave you in class when responding to the following:
What were the major findings related to Traffic Enforcement and Racial Profiling?
What type of strategy would you suggest to reduce or elliminate racial profiling in traffic enforcement?
Please respond to your classmates as well as posting your responses.
Maria: Love you girl but, not every one is an outward thug. Dress, hairstyle, clothes and pattern of speech is not always a factor in being a thug. In my experience in boardrooms there are all kinds of thugs even one's without arrest records who wear Armani suits.
ReplyDeleteAnti-social behavior or persons with border personality disorders can conceal their true intentions. These psychological test can be figured out. Simple "I will tell you what you want to hear".
Which of Ted Bundy's classmates in Law school thought he was a serial rapist and murderer?
Arrest record are inconsequential. These psychologist are not asking the right questions: They should be asking "What are your short and long term goals and what purpose do you have for wanting to be here".
I disagree with Joel on this "If the punishment is strong enough, it will deter many of the already corrupted from continuing their illegal activities", because punishments can be harsh on one person but not as harsh on the next. Let's take judicial discretion and jurisdiction into consideration. Alot of criminals are punished differently simply because of where they live, who they know, where they work, and their background. Also, let's say there was a harsher punishment that would deter police corruption. It still won't apply to all states. So it will all remain local. (which is not bad).
ReplyDeletePlace officers of all different types of cultures and race to patrol questionable areas. Also they should try rotating the officers so the same officer is not always patroling the same area.
ReplyDeleteI will say it was definitely greed! Like they say "every dog has it's day."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was poor hiring practices or training. Unless the hiring department new the purpose of employment of those particular officers...which I don't think was the case.
We can not put the blame on someone else for their actions. I don't think any superior would want corruption in their unit, I'm sure this is something they do not hope for nor want.
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior? When you get your badge you are held to a higher standard. You have such authority and power and that comes with a great responsibility that society bestow on the officer.
ReplyDeleteYes, greed can be the root of this problem. I can't help but wonder where was the commission or IA when all this was going on.
It might also be a good idea to make all stops recorded with the dash cam and on the report it must show a specific reason and just cause as to why the individuals were stopped.
ReplyDeleteYes. Officers who commit crimes against their should suffer harsher consequences than criminals because they were "sworn to serve and protect" the citizens of the United States. They are supposed to be the people we look up to and trust to serve justice to all. I do think any officer who is corrupt and infringes on other innocent peoples' freedom should be brought before the law and be judged severely and accordingly to their own crime.
ReplyDeleteMr. Bosch, you can grow up in a bad neighborhood and still be an honest, good person. Yes, I know there are different combinations of variables that CAN explain the creation of a "bad person" but I think you should read about these officers as individuals before you make a conclusion. If bad parents, bad neighborhoods is the reason, then each corrupted officer should have the same background to support your comment as a fact and not opinion.
ReplyDeleteYes, they should suffer more because more is expected from them. I believe someone else also mention this above and I agree. You are here to serve and protect the community not to abuse and misuse your title or position. They should do more of everything more time in prison or probation, community hours, etc.
ReplyDeleteWas it because of greed?
ReplyDeleteIn part, yes … Today days, it might be very easy for a police officer to become corrupt because drugs are very accessible and easy to obtain and the temptation to steal might appear, unless this police officer sustains high standards of moral, ethics, values, and beliefs, as well as he/she is a law-abiding officer.
In a competitive society in which valuable tangible and intangibles give supremacy and powers, it is understandable that certain individuals are tempted to do whatever they can do in order to obtain and reach that position.
In response to Lilian Coto - I disagree. It all falls on the individual. You can't train a cop to be "non-corrupted",true, but at the end his mind controls everything he does. That is why with proper education, warnings, and training; officers can learn the do's and dont's to the job. I am not saying it will remove corruption completely, but it certainly reduces the chances and probability of a corrupt officer.
ReplyDeleteBy experience, I think that racial profiling occurs because of ignorance. Not Knowing is scary to alot of people. Especially when people are brought up with a negative prejudice about other cultures. In the Race Gender and Ethinicity class we learned so much about other cultures by just asking questions and sharing experiences with others. I think that educating officers can help a little. Like Jessie said, the dash cam is always a good idea.
ReplyDeleteSadly, racism is everywhere and seems impossible to end. But we can all try to do our part.
I just thought that maybe the station who hired these officers simply had low standards because I can't imagine that they passed the psych tests and lie detectors and the officers screening them couldn't see how they were.
ReplyDeleteand I agree with mike, there's no training for anti-corruption. You either have it in you or you don't. Training cant remove a weak mind and character. This is exactly what the screening tests are for.
ReplyDeleteBut Mike, officers are already trained "to do the right thing" on the job, but corruption is still being done. Corruption is nothing new. How many times do we see police officers and federal agents on dateline (soliciting children for sex online)? Like you said, it all depends on the individual. Not everyone can keep their hand out of the cookie jar.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, MORALITY is something the officer should already hold. Police Officers already have a "code of ethics" they have to abide by. Maybe, agencies need to review that and make changes accordingly to ensure its affectiveness.
I agree with Maritza about they (police) should have harsher punishments."they are here to serve and protect the community not to abuse and misuse your title or position". I agree and with that comes the power and with the abuse of that power should come harsher penalty
ReplyDeleteWas it because of bad hiring practices?
ReplyDeleteIt is also feasible, because screenings could fail in detecting something in police officer’s records as well procedures could fail during the hiring process … once again, we are humans.
How effective can be a psychological interview? … Do you think that nothing in a person’s criminal record truly reflects that such person never committed an unlawful act? …. Just think that almost all of us have speeded while driving. In fact, I personally have been stopped by police officers for speeding a couple times …. But guess what, I do not have points at all!
What I want to say is that an officer could in the past stole and never been detected and charged for … so now, he/she just is repeating the same behavior.
Lilian. I never said that my answer was fact, it's always been an opinion. And my answer remains, children are like sponges learning and taking everything in around them. If their parents are crap then most likely they are going to start off in a bad way. That wont make them criminals though. but if then to add on top of that, their neighborhood's crap, that's 2 things sending them the same message. So the early years are crucial and if not taught the basic stuff at that age how can you expect them as adults to know that stealing is bad? That taking pay-off's is bad? You can't.
ReplyDelete"You cant teach an old dog not to bark"
Its true what Eugenia says, we are all human and most problems around us are results of human error. But when looking to hire officers one cannot allow human error to be a factor. Thugs and low lives cannot enforce something they don't believe in. Those tests and interviews are key, if they cannot be made tricky enough to weed put people without conscience or morals then they are useless and have to be redone.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that if that cop would've given you that speeding ticket you would've been more careful in the future.
Lillian:
ReplyDeleteSo gald you learned some valuable techniques to help understand the issue.
Jessie:
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like a very organized (crime) event. Criminal mind, planning and execution. Go figure, these were police officers. Explanations are too far away, but I think these exceptional cases create a learning platform for us to learn about how to try to prevent it.
For those who cite greed as amajor cause, I agree. But I also think that opportunity and power are also critical. If we learn how to remove opportunity from those who would not be tempted otherwise, we might have make some real headway.
ReplyDeleteRespect is learned. I think morals are intrinsic (inside part of our personality) to some extent. If we can dig deeper into the moral standing of those with power, we might have interesting results.
ReplyDeleteI can’t totally agree with Mike Calderon, when he says the “Rampart Scandal” has to do with a lack of supervision. The reason why I say that is because many times in the work place people do things that go unforeseen. It’s not only until they slip up that they are caught. I always say “what you do in the dark shall come to the light” it’s only a matter of time!
ReplyDeleteMr. Bosch: I disagree with you. Think at a higher level. Every one is an Individual and as that individual person you make your own dicisions. Even young babies "Can" refuse to eat something they don't like and this is an example of early decision making and refusal to do as someone else wants you to do.
ReplyDeleteI have been fortunate enough to have always lived amoung the very privilaged and even they commit bad and criminal acts.
Once you are 18 you have the ability and "can" choose to make choices.
People need to stop making up excuses for why others do wrong things.
It's simple: you as a person Chooses to do things that you know deep down inside are not correct or you can choose not to participate in these activities. You "Can" choose to say no, I will not follow you or no I will not commit illegal acts.
I think sometimes people who do something wrong at a spare moment w/out thought has lack of impulse control.
Persons who follows others even when they know the other person is wrong is a follower and pushover.
Follow the simple formula: If I get caught,
How much is this or can this cost me. Can I lose my job, freedom and respect of my peers. I you have to many negatives then walk away from that situation.
Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteEducation is promoted as necessary if police are to continue to be professional. However, education itself is certainly not a panacea. In fact, some of the officers with the worst examples of unethical behavior in other cases either had college degrees or scored above average on the academic test to qualify for hiring. Although lack of education has been linked to unethical and unlawful activities, it is by no means clear that education, by itself, increases the ethics of police officers.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
Police officers are supposedly to be accountable for their acts because they clearly know the difference between what is right and wrong according to the law. They are accountable for high standards of ethics and conduct; therefore, I believe that they should be penalized with zero tolerance … They should spend the time behind bars prescribed by law without chance to reduce their time, as a very deterrent warning for other officers. Thus, an officer before to commit a crime will not think it twice but, hopefully, hundred times!!!
Dr. Kalam
ReplyDeletefyi Jessie and Jessinia G. are the same person. I realized we have 3 Jessinia in class and changed my user name.
By the way I agree opportunity and power are major key factors. We have to break the triangle. Sort of like target hardening. Rotating police so they are not more than 3-4 months in one area can also help curtail some of the curruption. Also I think that police officers should have to give copies of their assests on a quaterly basis. How does a police officer making 50k a year drive a Benz and make 3 to 4 thousand dollar mortgage payments a month. Have police officers hand over financial records, credit card records. If they are spending beyond their means and are making less money than whats needed to cover bills where is the other money being used comming from. Have them give records of purchases over 5k. Start questioning where the boats, toys and other expensive goodies come from. If they feel the heat the currupt officers will be less tempeted or they will not be able to spend what they stole.
I agree with Adler, when it comes to police officers are suppose to be accountable for their own actions because they clearly know the difference between, what is right and wrong according to the law. Throughout their training in the academy they are taught what is lawfully right when honoring the badge. When they graduate and become officers it is up to them to implement the tools they were taught in the academy to successfully uphold the law.
ReplyDeleteI still stick to my point, Jessinia. Take a psych class and you will see what makes people behave in certain ways and most, if not all of it is environmental. There are few rare cases that prove otherwise. What can you really expect from people that were raised in homes where you couldn't curse but you'd see parents curse, beat each other and cheat their ways to whatever little they had in life?
ReplyDelete"There are truths, lies and then there are statistics."
I do agree however that officer's assets and spendings should be rigidly controlled, just like many other people. But aren't they already by the IRS?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that opportunity and power are the main factors for a police officer to do such thing. Not only is it easier for them to do it, but they also know how to cover it up. That is why it is very necessary for the hiring process to be carefully executed. Requirements such as a good credit history which to us might be insignifficant, can say a lot about the person. In my opinion and I think it is also most departments' opinion; a person with a lot of debts or a bad credit file is more likely to become a corrupt cop because it is an easy way out to his or her economic issues. I also think money is not the reason a person becomes an officer because unfortunately they don't get paid enough; however economic issues do arise and I think with constant and consistant training not only on the law enforcement practices but also in the values and morals of the department would greatly reduce the corruption in police officers.
ReplyDeleteJessinia:
ReplyDeleteChoice is what separates us as humans.
Excellent response and thought process.
Thank you
I completely agree racial profiling is due to ignorance. I would include that it is also due to lack of knowledge...Certain people don't care and don't change. For some they are just afraid of change and could care less if they gain ANY knowledge on racism! Not realizing that the change can make a difference not only in their lives, but in ours as well.
ReplyDeleteRacism should have been stopped decades ago. Yet, it seems that we still live in it today (to a certain extent). Changing the way we think and act positively, always ends in a positive result.
MMartinez:
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more,
Too often, we stereotype positions and thus, stereotype those who apply. Removing those barrier and creating more thought about the particular position is a valid strategy
Mr. Bosch:
ReplyDeleteThe environment is the proving ground.
Jessinia G:
ReplyDeleteVery observant and on point.
What you refer to is more accountability I think. Well put
Am I the only one who can’t find the questions or answers to the blog Dr. Kalam posted as our second response in the article “Current Issues and Research Needs?” If I’m mistaken please tell me where I can find it. Maybe my packet is missing some pages. However, I will try to answer the second question to the best of my ability base on my own opinion and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteWhat type of strategy would you suggest to reduce or eliminate racial profiling in traffic enforcement? I wouldn’t necessarily say this would be a strategy but rather I would say it would be an effective tool, that may help prevent racial profiling, how about having multicultural in- service trainings. Let me explain what I mean by multicultural in-service training, I would gather different pictures of different people from different types of communities, so that police officers can see what a person who lives in this particular area may look like. What one officer may deem a norm may not be norm to another officer. Prime example it wasn’t until the terrorist attacks of 911, did I notice what a person from the Middle East would look like. If I was an officer I would be more willing to pull over someone in a car that resembles one of the guys from the Middle East. In other words I would be racially profiling terrorist look a likes. But having the training I can see the diversity we have and know that, seeing these types of people is norm for this area.
MaritzaM:
ReplyDeleteIt should have stopped..but in reality, is it reasonable to think it will?
Racial prfiling is how we live these days
Monica:
ReplyDeleteThank you. You are on point with your response. Building profiles and then using them to support our state "Mission" is where we often miss our target.
We must ensure that everyone knows what is expected, and set some expectations about what we want to happen.
Thanks
In my opinion I believe officers should go through a particular training before they actually get hired. For example, a course that will guide them on what and what not to do if certain situations arouse that are relating to different personalities, races, genders, sexual orientation, etc...
ReplyDeleteIf they do not pass this part of the training then obviously they will have a problem when dealing with different people, personalities and ethnicity. It will be a way to eliminate racism of any kind.
They should follow certain procedures and protocols that deal with delicate situations.
If a mother shoves the spoon down your throat your choice is made for you. People need to stop thinking that children have control of their own lives. An 18 yrs old without proper education is more likely to expose deviant behavior, and that's a fact. Education being the parents and society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with miss martinez.A credit check does say a lot about a person.
Dr. Kalam, can you elaborate on your comment please.
I agree with you Maritza but I still think there are some really good actors out there and what they reflect in the academy or in front of their superiors might not be neessary who they really are. But adding to your strategy we could also extend the monitoring process for trainees before actually releasing them to the streets on their own. This monitoring process could be taking place without the officers knowing they are been monitored therefore their true colors would be esily seen.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Lilian...
ReplyDeleteMr. Bosch:
ReplyDeleteWhen we develop specific initiatives, we sometime fall short in our communication to all of those involved. If, for example, we design a policy aimed at reducing corruption, we should first build consensus in the ranks of those who might be most affected. We should set claer expaectations about what the purpose is, what each affected persons responsibility is, and we should create measureable benchmarks so that we can gauge whether or not the initiative is on track.
When all parties are involved and know what is expexted, research and practice tells us that the results are more positive.
Somehow my response in regards to punishment did not post, here is my response.
ReplyDeleteI do think punishment for police professions should be more severe. We punish people who are ignorant of the laws so it is only fair that we use a more severe punishment for those who are very knowledgeable of the laws and still choose to commit the crime. When a police officer commits a crime not only do they betray their department, they also betary the trust and the power given to them. Its send us the wrong message to the citizens and that is why people start to loose respect for the uniform and for what it should represent. I have learned that in life " Do as I preach and not as I do" is not an effective method to getting others to making the right decision.
I see your point, Dr. Our early youth is still the core around what everything else is built upon. Regardless on how many consensus or how much we try to perfect the system, "were still not tackling the root of the problem" as you said in the lecture.
ReplyDeleteObviously in accordance to what you wrote, there will be more positive outcomes because of those policies.
Martinez, you're right! That would actually work. It will prolong the process and not making it aware to them actually is a good idea!
ReplyDeleteI read a lot of blogs and a lot of them make sense even the one where maria disagreed with jessie about the officers already being thugs before they were hired. other thatn that the class gave a lot of good example a lot of people agree on the should pay more for what they have done and the cause of this was greed.
ReplyDeleteSome of the major findings related traffic enforcement and racial profiling is that minorities are frequently stop the most than white people. Even thought that in today's society we have learned that there is more white people incarcerated (because they are more in population) minorities received harsher punishment and are often sentenced to more time for the exact crime than a white person. African American are one of the highest group who get racial profial followed by Hispanics. In the article "The disparity between African Americans and white shot killed by the police was cut in half" this implacates that because of the movements, the hiring of minorities, lawsuits, and investigation against the police department that there is more equality. As a minority, I do not agree, there is still more disparity when it comes to minorities. Colombian are said to have money because of the drug, why? A Hispanic or African American can not make decent money and be able to buy a home. There is still more to be done to create equality.
ReplyDeleteDr. Kalam, the two topics you introduced here are great. I enjoyed the discussion and arguments that were brought to the floor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with mmartinez on the comment of "betray". I think that its a strong word and police officers have that "bleed blue" saying that they "live up to". So having a fellow officer or society saying that they betrayed them is real harsh.
I do not think will ever be perfect but I do believe it can be improve. One way to start is through our children. We need to teach them that we are all equal and unique. The children are the future adults and having the change now will make the difference.
ReplyDeleteI think officers should go through psychological tests and assessments to verify the grade of individuals when relating to people in general but most specifically when dealing with races, genders and others issues. It is not difficult to find out about people and their idealistic point of view; in 5 minutes of conversation about “hot topics” one can find out a lot about an individual.
In order to reduce racial profiling (not eliminate, is impossible because we are all human beings and have different opinions), more minorities (black and females) should be hired as police officer. We have seen an increased in Hispanic police officer, but even our own race (if you are Hispanic)are guilty in profiling against another Hispanic. So to reduce racial profiling, I believe that the first step is educating the citizens, tell them and explain them the rights that they have under the Constitution. You will be surprise the amount of people who do not their rights. If more people know their rights and claim them when they are stopped by a police officer, the police officer will be more cautious because he/she now knows that is he/she is dealing with someone who is aware of their rights. Remember knowledge is power.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the major findings related to Traffic Enforcement and Racial Profiling?
ReplyDeleteThe major findings was since the administrative rulemaking regarding the use of deadly force there has been a “…significant reduction in the racial disparity among persons shot and killed – primarily as a result of eliminating the shooting of unarmed and non-assaultive person”. “the disparity between African Americans and whites shot killed by the police was cut in half”.
Written policies governing the use of force specify the legitimate purpose for which the force may be used therefore, specific circumstances in which force is authorized or forbidden. Resulting, the reduction of incidences involving the use of force.
For those who participated, you did a great job. This was very a very informative and educational event.
ReplyDeleteFor those who did not participate, you have time to earn your points.
Thanks for a great session and see you next week.
What type of strategy would you suggest to reduce or eliminate racial profiling in traffic enforcement?
ReplyDeleteThis is a hard question. I don’t really know how to reduce it. I mean we can eliminate police discretion therefore; everyone will have the same treatment. However, as stated in class it is not that simple. I also agree with what Jessina stated about more minorities being hired. I also agree with educating the public about their rights. Then again how do you get them involved if they don’t want to be? I mean, this is very difficult.
The only thing that comes to mind is if a officer is found guilty of racial profiling he or she should have a sever sentence to serve as a deterrent. However, then again how would you prove they were racial profiling. Dr. K I am really stuck on this one. I am sure if there was a easy answer it would have already been applied to the police agencies.
Monica... I am having the same problem........I cann't find the paragraph related to the questions ...
ReplyDeleteI FOUND IT...
ReplyDeleteI agree with maritza21 on her disscusion on racial profiling highly. She states that basically that rtacism still continues because people in society refuse to change. The days of racism has passed use and move on but people still holds on to it like it was yesterday.
ReplyDeleteI think that I have the wrong article. I have the article about “Police accountability: Current issues and research needs.” But, I’ll answer the questions based in what I know.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the major findings related to Traffic Enforcement and Racial Profiling?
It is well known that minority accounts of disparate treatment at the hands of police officers when it applies to situations involving traffic violations. Racial profiling has been derisively referred as “driving while black,” “driving while brown,” or “driving while Hispanic.” Officers shall not stop to anyone solely based upon the person’s race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the erratic behavior of the individual while driving.
What type of strategy would you suggest to reduce or eliminate racial profiling in traffic enforcement?
ReplyDeleteWhen people are racially biased it is hard to reduce this. First, I would include topics about multiculturalism during trainings to make officers aware about the diversity in our present society and also promote racial tolerance among them. Second, I would try to hire enough officers belonging to minorities; thus, non-minority officers will have the opportunity to closely share with minority officers while working and intrinsically comprehend that each person—no matter what race, ethnic, or national origin—is valuable as a human being.
Also, it is critical to stress and enhance police accountability among officers which in turn, certainly, will mean less unfair and unlawful stops to individuals belonging to racial minorities.
ReplyDeleteNOVEMBER 7th POSTINGS GO HERE
ReplyDeleteThis week we will discuss the issues surround hiring in the police force.
Following up from the last class, we learned that more emphasis is being placed on education rather than on the traditional mode of "training and development" provided at the academy.
Consider the following when responding to the discussion questions:
1. If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
4. Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
Thank you for your responses,
Dr. Kalam
1. If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
ReplyDeleteFirst at all, each person is different and some has innate skills for certain things. For some police officers fifteen years of experience in the field can give them wide rounded knowledge. If an officer has worked in many units and knows how they run, he/she doesn’t need formal education. However, once that person gets the position he/she need go back and get some education for having even better education.
Nevertheless, higher education reduces time required for movement in rank and assignment to specialized positions. Higher education will enhance an officer’s probability of rising to the top regardless of whether the agency requires formal education as a precondition of employment.
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteColleges offer a wide variety of courses on subjects not taught by law enforcement departments. A college degree gives you more information and doesn’t give you necessarily the answers. However, an officer with a college degree will be able to analyze, interpret, and make better judgments than an officer that hasn’t one. He/she will be more prepare in deciding what to do in a particular situation because he/she probably took courses which emphasizes problem solving, critical thinking.
In addition, the officer with college-level can develop understanding on how perceptions influence behavior and he/she has the ability to flexible handle difficult or ambiguous situations. A college-educated officer is assumed to be less rigid in decision making.
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteI agree that a college degree is a positive thing. However, by demanding a degree you will limit a lot of people for getting the position—because they are not “books smarts” but they are good and skillful. In fact, there are excellent cops that are “street smarts.” Also, it is known that minorities have not the financial access to higher education as Whites have; therefore, a college degree will prevent them from joining the police academy.
Some police departments encourage their officers to get higher education. The departments may pay for the tuition, fees, books and others costs, or officer may pay for them. Officers should take advantages for any assistant provide by police departments. Through education officers will learn the theory which will reinforce what they are “seeing on the streets.”
I think that a college degree as a mandatory policy for entry level positions in all departments will close many doors for minorities and those socio-economic disadvantaged. The requirement of a college degree for police employment may be a discriminatory measure.
4. Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
ReplyDeleteYes, because it will open me doors. I’ll have more to offer than a person without a college degree. Also, a college degree develops a greater empathy for diverse populations and their unique life experience which is really necessary in our multicultural society where we live. In addition, it gives me many other tools such as better communication skills, understanding on people’s behavior, problem solving, critical thinking, etc.
1. If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
ReplyDeleteThis individual I believe is more than qualified for the position; rather than having an individual who just came out of college and putting them in that rank. HOWEVER, if this individual wants to be in this position, s/he should be obligated to attend classes, to receive the proper degree required. I know some police departments help pay for a certain percentage of college, or so I heard. Therefore, s/he should be one of the individuals who receive that type of help.
If this individual doesn’t want to attend college, then s/he should not receive the position. IF this individual does accept going to school then, s/he can get in the position.
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteAs Lucy Sanchez stated on Saturday class, according to Stan Shernock and Gail Dantzker” When educated people are faced with a novel situation, they should be able to analyze, interpret and make judgments about the situation themselves rather than rely on others to tell them what to do… a person [who]has been merely trained, on the other hand, is more likely to rely on other to tell him on her what to do in a particular situation and is less likely to understand the area on for doing what he or she is directed to do” (Chapter 8 Pg 237)
When receiving a degree in college, you are obligated to take certain core classes. For instance: psychology (helps you understand people and how some individuals think and why they think that why), humanities (in this class you learn about different cultures, and beliefs) and etc. Individuals who have a degree should be able to analyze the situation and apply the knowledge they received from college when making a decision on the street.
If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the officer should receive some type of promotion (grandfathered in). However I don’t believe he or she may be qualified for an administrative position in the ranks. I can’t say I see that person as the chief of police for a county. But I may see that person as the head detective of the homicide branch. Why I say that is because being on the force that many years you are subject to seeing a lot of situations and scenarios on the streets. Whereas you may not be knowledgeable enough to know what goes on as far as paper work goes on an administrative level. I’ve learned that a police officer can do more damage with a pen in their hand versus a rifle in their hand. The black and blue ink is a powerful tool!
How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteI say being an officer nowadays you need to be equipped with two standards. Streets smart and book smarts. If their isn’t one thing we learned from studying different criminals mind aspects is that more and more these criminals have a lot of smarts. I say some criminals are a lot smarter than some of our college graduates. Some times being on the force your place in a certain scenarios where having some kind of college knowledge would be sufficient. Like a hostage situation. The officer must have some kind of knowledge to be able to talk that person out of the situation peacefully. Just a certain sentence in a split second may be what’s needed to suppress that certain situation. I say having that college degree can help that officer when it comes to decision making…
Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteYes and no I’m two sided when it comes to this question. Only because I wouldn’t want to hinder some ones dream of becoming an officer just because they don’t want to go to college or doesn’t have some kind of college degree, college isn’t for everyone. Having a high school diploma or GED is sufficient enough. Normally when in high school or after high school one may think of their career or job, you have some officers who look at being an officer as their career and not just a job. So after high school if that person knows that they want to be an officer because the view it as a career, why should we subject them to take college credits. They are ready for the workforce. Now if we were talking about an administrative entry level position then yes they definitely need some type of college degree.
Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
ReplyDeleteYes, my degrees will definitely help me with my career. My B.S degree will help me with acquiring some type of administrative level position whether it is working for Immigration or Social Security or even the States Attorney office. The Master Degree I plan to acquire will help me when I eventually decide to retire and teach at a College or University.
1. I believe that sometimes actual field experience goes further than book smarts. So it should be on a case to case basis that some have what it takes other don't. I think an interview could be used to find out whether they can cut it. School doesn't always prepare us for what's out there, as sometimes you find that you learned the most once already on the job.
ReplyDelete2.I completely agree with maria in that college gives us the tools to accurate face future problems and aid in our decision making.
3. I don't think so. As entry level, is kind of speaks for itself. That's where you pick up the basics. Basics that you don't really learn from a book. Not mandatory but encouraged, I would say.
4. I'm not really sure where I'll end up in a couple of years so I'm thinking about skipping this one. I am planning on pursuing higher education and maybe applying at the FBI later on.
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteYES!!! College degree should be mandatory for entry level officer positions in all police department. As mentioned previously education helps with decision making on the streets. Although, we have great officers now who have no degree, if we made it mandatory for officers to have a degree, maybe those officers who are great would be great and with a degree. I feel in this career you work with different types of people and different types of situations; therefore, this is a extremely important job. I understand officer receives training but I don’t feel it is enough. Now people argue saying there have been guys on the job for 15 years and are better than any new officer who came in who has a degree. I agree with this but now but that officer who came in to L.E with a degree 15 teen years later… then we should compare. Which we already had a test conducted in 1988 (Executive Research Forum Study) which states several advantages of college education for police officers (pg 239)
We complain about police brutality and how SOME officers disrespect people rights and people. Well according to the Executive Research Forum Study a person who has a education has a “…greater appreciation for constitutional rights, values and the democratic form of government” (pg 239) On this page it list seven advantages a officer with an education has for a police department.
Ms Bosch:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you regarding that entry level speaks for itself and that is where you pick up the basics that you can’t learn from a book. But, if it was mandatory for individuals to have a college degree along with that basic training don’t you feel that will have a better impact on the police departments as a whole? If so, don’t you feel it should be required?
If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not? I decided to answer no to this answer because 15 years should not only entitle you a higher position. I believe education is need because a person at a senior management position need to know to present topics, develope a powerpoint, or spreadsheet. Education will help the individual speak better and interact with his employees better. Its is still possible that and individual without education can still conduct and perform better than a person with, but a person with education has a document that says that this individual has the skill to perform at this management position.
ReplyDeleteHow does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making? Having a degree helps and officer with the streets in ways such as speech and interaction. The approach of an officer makes a lot of difference to how a situation turns out. Education helps and officer understand the community an pick up on the diversity that must likely surrounds him. College teaches you what society has to offer and what you can do to better or prevent things. College is the mental aspect of individual that I say is needed.
ReplyDeleteMaria, I do believe that it would have an overall positive impact, but under no circumstances that it should be mandated. It should be considered as a choice for those who want to strive further up the chain, and of course be rewarded equally through more salary or benefits. Also that would in a way show who are more interested in escalating and those who are happy where they are. Pursuing higher education should be a privilege, not a right
ReplyDeleteShould the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments? I believe so an A/A would be good for entry level into law enforcement. Reason is education is essential and it increase the maturity of and individual when it comes to responsibility. A college degree also let you know as a hirer how is this individual mentally by checking such things as grade point average. Is this individual a slacker or hard worker.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Lubens Jean Baptiste. I believe an AA should be required at a min. I feel it does increase the maturity level as well. However, there are older individuals and individuals who are young who are mature and there are individual who went to school that are not mature. but i do agree with you.
ReplyDelete4. Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
ReplyDeleteI believe it will. I have learned so many things. For instance: constitution rights, landmark cases, police brutality, terrorism, criminal behavior, and the list goes on and on. Now if you add that with the training I will receive from either the police department or a Federal Agency. I honestly feel I would be prepared. Now I know there are some cases in which an individual has a degree yet s/he does not to the job well at all. It also depends if a job is for you or not!
I think if you compare someone entering with a High School Diploma/GED V. Someone working on his/her Bachelors Degree I feel that individual entering with the Bachelors Degree would have a better understanding how to analyze certain situations. BUT… there are exceptions.
ALL:
ReplyDeleteI agree that a pen is a powerful tool as is the ability to rationalize your thoughts using a combination of your training and education. One is no good without the other in many cases. Yet in certain circumstances, street smarts are critical and cannot be taught to anyone except on the job.
But I would say that Knowing how to respond to difficult management issues does require that:
the person is motivated
The person has the ability
the person applies a thought process
the person evaluates their decisions....
the person IS THE KEY COMPONENT
I don’t agree with Maria and Jean when stated "I believe an AA should be required at a min." To me a High school diploma or GED is sufficient enough. Having a AA degree does not determine if a officer has enough maturity to do his/her job. You can also say neither does a High school diploma or GED but what determines if they can complete their job is the training that they receive in the Academy. Yes, having AA is a plus but its not enough to determine that officer maturity and if their equip to do their job.
ReplyDeleteMonica:
ReplyDeleteI can see your point. But I must say that I think maturity is not all there is to what makes someone qualified. We must base our qualifications on some tangible results to determine whether education is beneficial or not.
While I can see the maturity argument, I beg to differ on whether it rules out consideration of an AA or other higher educational qualification.
Monica:
ReplyDeleteI totally understand why you say what you say. I do respect it and there are individual out there who have an AA that are not mature. However, when you obtain a degree it takes dedication and i understand there are people who sometimes b.s their way through but, there are a lot who dont and take school serious.
i feel becoming an officer is a big responsibility and sometime people forget that. If you are arrested although you may be innocent that is on your record. Regardless if you are innocent or if it is thrown out. it is still on your record.
As i mention before, there are some older and young individual who have a high school diploma/ GED who are very mature and can handle that but, since we have so many cracks in the system and we have studies that prove education is a better approach, I feel we should take it. Like i said i know where you are coming from, we have some excellent officers who have a high school diploma/ GED and they are doing a great job. But, studies have shown proven t a difference in individuals who have a degree and I feel that has to do with maturity.
1-If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the the academy?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe a police officer that has been on the force for 15 years, is qualified based on experienced but the officer should be require to acquire a formal education. Although education does not assure a good performance it helps to enhance the probability of sucess. A formal education will equip the officer in the best way to succeed. The combination of education and his experience is a win win situation.
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteHaving an education will better prepare anyone. Dr. Kalam or someone in class mentioned that a police dept. did a study about the officers with and without a formal education. The study reveal that the officers with education have a superior chance keep the job, they were able to solve problems in a better matter and etc..as Eugenia Adler was saying " an officer with a college degree will be able to analyze, interpret, and make better judgments than an officer that hasn’t one. He/she will be more prepare in deciding what to do in a particular situation because he/she probably took courses which emphasizes problem solving, critical thinking.
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteYes, college should be a requirement for all law enforcement officers, a department that requires college (and pays accordingly) will attract a higher quality applicant. The benefits of a college degree go far beyond “book smarts”. In my personal experience when dealing with people in any situation that have a formal education (not all but most) tended to exhibit better interpersonal skills and more creative problem-solving.
4. Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it will. A college degree will tell a potential employer that I can be trained in something and it tell the employer that there is a pretty good chance I have the ability to pick up on what I needed to know. Also, as I mentioned before a person with a college degree will be able to analyze, interpret, and make better judgments than an person that hasn’t one. I also believe it imparts a certain polish, a "finished-ness". You speak easier on a broader range of topics. You relate more easily with a broader range of people, plus I realize it help me to better my selfsteam.
1. If a police officer has been on the force for 15 years, is s/he qualified for a promotion to a senior management position, even though s/he has no formal education beyond the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
ReplyDeleteYes, the officer should be qualified for the promotion based on 15 years of experience and job knowledge. Although, s/he has no formal education beyond the academy it still should not disqualified them. Having a college degree doesn’t give experience. Many management positions require you to have a number of years experience, and should you not have the years experience a degree is required.
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteA college degree would help the officer a great deal when it comes to decision making. The officer is able to analyze, communicate, and interpret information that is being giving to him. He is then able to perform his duties better. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to be a little street smart.
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteI don’t think a college degree should be mandatory for a entry level police officer position. For instants, if a person has a college degree s/he is likely not going to apply for an entry level position as a officer. They’re going to look at it as if I went to school four years just to put my life on the line. They would apply for the position that’s a lot less dangerous. College is not for everybody
4. Will your college degree help you with your career? if yes, How?
ReplyDeleteYes, it will. I think with today’s job market to become a crime scene investigator my B.S. degree will open up many doors, since many agencies require you to have A.A or A.S degree. Also, having my degree will allow my to advance to management positions. With a degree it helps you to communicate and make better decisions.
I think the whole maturity concept relative, like some mentioned earlier, its all about the person. and if a candidate doesn't seem mature enough, don't hire him, there will be plenty of others to take his role. Officers do go through different screening procedures for reasons.
ReplyDelete