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?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior? Yes,there is explanation for this type of behavior. When you have access to too much power you feel that you can do anything you want and get away with it for as long as you can; nothing matters to you and you don't feel responsible.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteI believe that to this type of behavior comes from your morale and the way you were raised. An honest person will always attempt to make the right choices and try to guide those individuals in the right path, wether others like it or not. This type of personality might be liked by your peers or not, but in the end your conscience will be clear and not feel guilty for abusing your powers. I believe that as an adult you know what choices you can make and the consequences you have after you have made that decision, so in my opininon there is no excuse for this type of behavior.
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDelete- I think that the behavior probably develops after not being caught the first time. The officers probably started off with small things like bribery or harassing those in the neighborhood, and then it escalated.
Like seen in the movie Serpico one officer does it then another joins, then another and it just gets out of control. You will find the officers that turn their heads and pretend nothing is going on to avoid being a snitch.
They only explanation behind the officers action is greed. No, it's not because of bad hiring practices. Anytime some goes for an interview, their there to sell themselves- not to show their "inner demons".
ReplyDeleteThe officers were trained on the ethics and fairness, based on the books. This officer clearly doesn't have any morals. I don't think he/she should suffer anymore than the next person, his conscious will take care of that.
Greed plays a big role depending on that individual financial status or if opportunity presents itself there going to act on it. Hiring practice: How do you know that you’re hiring an individual without morals, dignity, and integrity? You just don’t know until that individual performs. For example, someone comes in for a job with no criminal background what so ever and passes all the assessments that are required to attain the job. However, this individual is a con artist who squeezes his way through life; you wouldn’t have any knowledge until that individual is exposed. You just don’t know! I don’t fell like is lack of training due to the fact that most entity provides in service training their are constantly being trained on the law, ethics skills, interpersonal skills and defensive skills. Most of them are exposed to corruption by other co-workers.
ReplyDeleteBerbelie:
ReplyDeleteYes, power can lead to all kinds of "bad behavior". How can we deter this more effectively? Is it supervision? is it culture driven?
Paulina:
ReplyDeleteYes, LEO's are people like us and as such, make choices. But should they be held to a higher standard? What about the culture that seems to "sheild" them?
Jessenia:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think they turn their heads? Is it peer pressure? Talk about the culture that you saw in the Serpico movie
Nikole:
ReplyDeleteOK, I can agree that hiring practices alone are not the cause. But what are some of the issues that surround the problem? Describe some of the culture that was evident in the LA example.
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteThere could be many explanations for this type of behavior. It could be that, like some have said earlier, that greed is the main motivation. Let's face it, LEOs are paid pretty well but they don't make that much at first.
It could be also that they are brought into it. This would be like Serpico where the other officers slowly introduce the "new" guy into their schemes so that he is guilty by association. They feel they can trust him if they know that he is also on the take. Almost, if not exactly, like peer pressure. If successful and just like the movie they became greedy...even when they didn't want to do it.
What makes the Rampart situation even worse was the fact that the police that were sworn to protect and serve were just like the gangs that they were supposed to fight. They became drunk with their level of power and abused an entire community.
(1)Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteIn reality, there is not one explanation for this type of behavior, in fact this type of behavior is a result of more than one factors. First of all, the graphical area makes a big part of it. Poor community areas may have some type of effect in this type of behavior. Officers don't seem to care much about integrity, morality, or professionalism when it comes to protecting a low economic level community which most of the times is high on crime.
(2)Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteGreed definetly plys a big role in this case, specially because police corruption is not a one time occacion, in fact once an officer gets into the habit of corruption, most likely that person will continue doing it, be it for the money, or any other ganings. Bad hiring practices and lack of effective traning may also be part of it in some cases, however, in my opinion if a person is corrupt they will not change their ways just because of poor training or lack of effective training.
(3)When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteI do think that they should receive a harsher punishment just because of the fact that they know better and they are the ones who should be setting the "good" example for the community. If the officer who is supposed to serve, protect, and most important act with honesty, is not doing so, what can they expect from the community.
berbelie:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say: hiring an individual without morals, dignity, and integrity?.... It is impossible to know how people are going to act when presented with different situations, and it is something that cannot be prevented regardless of the traning or hiring practices that that officer may have received.
Nikole:
ReplyDeleteI do not agrre whith your statement when you say: "The only explanation behind the officers action is greed" because this type of behavior may be a result of different factors. Grred is not he only reason to get involved in police corrution. It also depends on the situation, the people who you work with, and the environment.
Luis:
ReplyDeleteIt is true that some times an officer is just brought into corruptions by other officers, but in all honesty it depends on you if you want to act incorrectly no matter what others say or do.
I agree with what Nikole said, when people apply and go for an interview and do there psychological testing they lie. No one wants to reveal their true selves because the true them would not be hired.
ReplyDelete(Nikole said...
They only explanation behind the officers action is greed. No, it's not because of bad hiring practices. Anytime some goes for an interview, their there to sell themselves- not to show their "inner demons".
The officers were trained on the ethics and fairness, based on the books. This officer clearly doesn't have any morals. I don't think he/she should suffer anymore than the next person, his conscious will take care of that.)
Dr,
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe the peer pressure does play into it for some. There are individual like Serpico that no matter what will not give in to the peer pressure but unfortunately can't stop the corruption.
There are some that are so tempted by the money and the feeling of power that they avoid the bad conscious they might have afterward.
Luis,
ReplyDeleteYou are right about that. Some just don't what it takes to go another direction and just go with what the group is doing.
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDelete- I think it is due to greed. Training always tells you to do the right thing, but at the end it all comes down to a persons morals and values. A person can go through training that tells you how to behave, what to do etc. but that will not change a person. If a person does not feel or have a conscious towards what they are doing then they could care less about the training they receive.
Yes, power can lead to all kinds of "bad behavior". How can we deter this more effectively? Is it supervision? is it culture driven?
ReplyDeleteYes, more supervision world help but that require manpower and funding as we know the State of California don't have .... it is culture driven because you have the a lot of drug smuggling, immigrates coming in so they are willing to pay whatever to get their merchandise here or get themselves here and even getting a lesser charge.
I think the real question here is, is this a priority for the department... are they really pushing this issue if they are has there been a change in the statistic from the 80's til today?
I do believe that LEOs should be held at a higher standard because you took an oath to protect those who need help, to uphold the law and to abide by those laws. LEOS have a higher set of standards because the community need cops to be on their side. The community does not need too also have corrupted, "shaddy" cops having a legal gun and badge to corrupt and robbed them aheis well. Having "shaddy" cops means less trust on cops, less help from the community and cops are being profiled as corrupted cops.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if cops feel that they are shielded they might think that it could never happen to them. Those cops' mentality boost their ego. They might feel that they are untouchable, that they know how to beat the system. If they think that their "own' culture would shield (protect) them, they have a weak mentality.
Is there an explanation on this type of behavior?
ReplyDeletePolice officers are human being and we all know that people love money and power. I think that police officers engage in corruption because of their low moral values or their predispostion to commit criminal behavior. Police officers of the same agency evolve in the same environment, so why some of them are more likely to become involved in such behaviors than others.I think it is because of genetic because if a person is genetically predisposed to be deviant, there is a strong probability of becoming deviant if this person is exposed and evolved in an environment that deal or encourage crime.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Merly at the statement that POs are supposed to be role models and should be harsher punishment just because of the fact that they know better and they are the ones who should be setting the "good" example for the community.If the community loses trust on those who are here to serve n protect who can they call?
To All STUDENTS IN THIS GROUP:
ReplyDeletePlease read and discuss the "USe of Less LEthal Force and outlined in the Article I passed out in class.
What were the major findings?
Do you think the uincreased emphaisis on Supervision is a factor in reducing incidents of police brutaility and use of force problems?
Please respond to this and to your classmates.
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteI think that in the "Rampart Scandal", greed was the main motivation. Police officers use corruption to increase their own wealth.A police officer deals with violence and potential violence every day. I think that they might rationalize their actions by saying that it's ok to do it once, but then corruption become a viscious circle and they can't stop doing it.
Berbelie:
I am agree with you when you say that you don't know that you’re hiring an individual without morals, dignity, and integrity until that individual performs. I don't think that bad hiring practices can be the cause of corruption but greed can be.
Merly & Paulina,
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about LEO being role models but I think the punishment should be the same regardless of your occupation. If we punished according to your relationship to society and your victims than things would be all messed up. That is like saying teachers should be charged with harsher punishments than a auto mechanic for molesting a child. We would say that because she is suppose to be children's "role models" because she is the one who teaches them etc.
I believe there is many explanations to this behavior. I think this starts with morals and with values. It does not have anything to do with training because the officers should know that what they were doing was wrong from the beginning. I also believe that they probably thought they weren't going to get caught because of the power they think have amongst any person that is not an officer.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to their punishment I believe it should be harsher because they actually know the law and know that society has high expectations for them to serve and protect our community.
I think an explanation for this kind of behavior is greed. Officers might do thing that they know are not right and still engage in this type of activity because they did not get caught. So they continue with all the wrong doings. I think that certain individuals would do anything for money especially if they thought they wouldnt be caught, and they might think that if other police officers are involved they might go with it with more ease.
ReplyDeleteJessenia, I agree with you that it has nothing to do with training because when it comes down to those actions and choices it comes from the way you were raised. Training cant teach you to have morals and values from one day to another.
ReplyDeleteWhen officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, because Police officers are sworned individuals and consequently perceived as good example, they are supposed to protect the community, and enforce the law ( not break the law). By being corrupted or engaged in criminal activities, they affect the image and reputation of all police officers. In addition, when police officers are caught engaging in corrupt or criminal activities, it immediately gain the attention of the media and so the community. Then the community's respect to authorities diminish which is not safe for society and public safety. This is the reason why I think Officers or authorities figures in general should suffer more stringent penalties when committing crimes.
Definately it was about greed, i dont think it was lack of effective training because im sure they all get the same type and amount of training i think its all about the kinds of values an individual posseses.Aside of financial benefit reasons like career advancement, maybe covering up a serious mistake made in the line of duty might be a few reasons why poilice officers do these things
ReplyDeleteI have to agree on Merly and Paulina that their punishment has to be harsher. The community does rely on officers to protect and set excellent examples for everyone to follow. What will happen if the community does loose trust in their own officers, would they start taking matters in their own hands???
ReplyDeleteWhen officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteThey probably should suffer more simply because they should be setting an example for society. They definitely know better
There is no real explanation for police corruption because there are different motives behind why police officers commit crimes against the community. It is really hard to say exactly what the cause of it may be. For some officers it may be greed and that’s why they are stealing money or drugs. Officers are regular people too and as much as they try to hire fair and honest people to cops, I am sure a corrupt one gets hired somehow. As far police brutality goes it is hard to explain why they would beat people. I agree with what Paulina mentioned earlier about police officers and how they should be held at higher standards because citizens respect as authorities. As far as punishment goes, I feel they should be punished equally as a regular citizen would be punished not harsher because they are officials.
ReplyDeleteMerly:
ReplyDeleteI am agree with you. Even though an officer is brought into corruption by other officers, he has the choice to act incorrectly or not.
A PO has the choice as an human being to follow one direction instead of another. Then the choice of the direction depends on the values, the honesty, and the personnality of each ones.
Peer Pressure, hidden agendas, and outright bad behavior exist in many environments.
ReplyDeleteKids are the victims of peer pressure and crack under the weight. POlice officers are told one thing, and their leaders (higher level officials) may do something else..do as I say and not as I do. SOme just have bad bllod an resort to their primitive self eventually.
Human behavior is a tough one.
Major findings on use of "Less Lethal Forces"
ReplyDelete- departments that require a supervisor or other official to complete use of force reports have lower use of force rates than departments where the officer involved in each incident complete force reports.
- close supervision is associated with lower levels of use of force by officers.
- departments that use force reports for a specific purpose have higher overall use of forces rates.
I think that the emphasis on supervision is a factor in reducing incidents on police brutality and use of force problems. I truly think that supervision play a major role in
reducing incidents in general, we all need supervisors. If police officers have the opportunity to use excessive force and steal seized drugs, money, or alcohol without anyone knowing about it, it is beacuse of lack of supervision.
Missiva:
ReplyDeleteSo do you think that is there is a concerted effort to hide the truth, it is the supervisors fault?
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteA lot of this corruption was motivated by greed. If there wasn't an element of greed involved it probably wouldn't have been as widespread within the Rampart division.
As for bad hiring practices...I would have to say that officers from Rampart came from the same pool that other divisions came from. We don't really see the same level of corruption as was discovered here. It just doesn't add up that this was a main cause but it could have played a smaller role.
Training could possibly be another significant cause. Greed is still number one as a main cause but this could have been a strong secondary factor. If you want to instill integrity and honor amongst your officers you must train them accordingly. It seems to me that this may have been seriously lacking with these officers. At the same time though you can not completely attribute to this because officers from other divisions receive the same or similar training.
@ Merly
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that no matter the pressure...you are your own person. If you choose to do something illegal, or even keeping quiet about it, you are consciously making that decision. You are supporting that behavior.
I was merely stating that for a small minority who were involved they could have been pressured at the beginning. That pressure could have initially helped them to rationalize that it was ok.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Merly and Paulina on this one. With the Rampart division as the example, what they say is absolutely correct. This was a high crime neighborhood. Poor immigrants and violent street gangs that terrorize everyone. The community expected to be protected by the police and instead the community had one more gang to terrorize them. The even scarier part is that this gang was government sanctioned and supported. Obviously they abused that authority and failed the community they were sworn to protect.
Dr Kalam,
ReplyDeleteI think there is a concerted effort to hide the truth because I believe the "code of silence" exist.
It depends on the situation but it can be the supervisor's fault because they know that the police officer's position is very powerful and they are susceptible to a variety of temptation such as corruption or abuse of authority. This is the reason why supervisors have to adopt a zero tolerance policy when it comes to police officer's deviant behavior which means that they have to report every incidents that occur no matter what was the story that explains why he had to do whatever he did.If a police officers commit a wrong actions, it has to be reported ( no discretion)
In the Terill 2001 study it was found that close supervision was associated with lower levels of use of force by officers.
ReplyDeleteI think that increased supervision can reduce the use of force. Of course it all depends on who is supervising. If you have a corrupted supervisor then they most likely will overlook and allow the use of force. But, if you have a respected supervisor it will be like children, they don't act out if they have someone who is supervising them and that is taken seriously & that it is known that there will be consequences to actions that are unacceptable.
When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDelete-No, they should suffer the same consequences as others. That is just my opinion, as it is they will probably never be a police officer again, no matter what department or state they go to. It is just like losing a license to practice a particular profession. I think that combined with whatever the law is for that particular crime is sufficient.
The report found that departments that had a supervisor in charge filling out use of force reports had lower use of force rates than departments that did not have an official filling out the reports. The use of force reports does have a small effect on police brutality because they have to fill out a report about how much force was used. It makes them accountable for whatever actions they did, so they probably think twice before using excess force when handling situations.
ReplyDeletegoing back to the first question.... i agree with what jessenia says about police being penalized the same way as a regular citizen. a good example that was mentioned earlier was the one about the teacher and student punishment. Yes these people are role models and should conduct themselves professionally, but that doesnt mean they should be punished differently because of there positions in society
ReplyDeleteSupervicion is in fact a method that could potentially reduce police brutality. I know in some departments cameras are been installed to the police vehicles. Such cameras are to record everything from the moment the police officer stops the suspect to the moment they release them or arrest them. But in my opinion te department should have a superior department to monitor those cameras because it is not a secret that local police departments hide a lot of things because they do not want a bad reputation and they don't want to be looked at as the bad department.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the use of lethal force I do think that lack of supervision is a
ReplyDeletemain issue. I say this because this could be majorly prevented if officers are aware that they are being checked and would get in trouble if anything incorrect is done.
Mmartinez,
ReplyDeleteits true they do have cameras in some officers cars but unfortunately that does not avoid some officers from being brutal. As we have seen in the past officers seem to forget the dash cam is on and beat on the person they have pulled over etc.
I guess it all goes back to the individual, I know that i would be deterred from using lethal force if i was supervised / camera in my car. That's hypothetically saying that i would use lethal force.
It has to do with poor hiring practices. Law Enforcement is a professional profession and as such should be awarded with pay commensurate with the responsibilities and dangers that come inherently with it. Having said that, the level of education and skill needed as well as the training required to become an officer should be up to par with like professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.). The aforementioned professions are entrusted with members of societies lives and so are law enforcement officers with the exception that they are not only responsible for their lives but also put themselves deliberately into harms way. So a certain level of excellence should be expected when hiring these individuals. If the previous mentioned practices are put into place it would help stop MOST of these instances that put a stain in Law Enforcement. As far as punishment is concerned, the punishment should fit the crime. You cannot impose stronger penalties because that in itself is unconstitutional, regardless of there position in the community.
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
It has some to do with greed but i believe it has more to do with the roles we as society give law enforcement and civilians. Some officers see themselves as above the average person because of the authority entrusted with them to perform their duties. And it goes back to the types of policing... The smaller the gap between police and community the less likely police will see a "bad guy" as someone they are superior over and further lessen the likelyhood of being able to justify in their minds whatever form of corruption takes place.
ReplyDeletetesting.....
ReplyDeleteWell I finally got my computer to work......anyways in reference to what findings where supervision does play a role in how officers conduct themselves on using less lethal force. i do believe that supervision is necessary in any job/career. I believe that supervision is essential for the simple reasons that is human behavior knowing that if you have no one watching over you, one tends to be more relaxed and less focused on the job. For a police officer I believe that those department that have their supervisors write the use of force have less lethal use of force among their personnel compared to those department that have their own officers write their own statements. I further believe that having supervisors it does control the brutality that civilians assume on all officers. Again I think supervision is essential at all cost
ReplyDeleteMerly:
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you....officers do have constant supervision....Just because they are not 100 percent watching over their subordinates does not mean that they are not doing their job properly...Even though it is not 100 percent the supervisors responsibility to watch over their behavior because all adults whether be a cop, teacher a nurse, we are all responsible for our own actions and we are adults and not children.....
Berbelie,
ReplyDeleteI agree...when someone has position and power, often times it's abused. The person doesn't think twice about who their hurting.
Jessenia Munoz,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you on the behavior. Personally, behavior is developed when your younger- learning right from worng. It's up to that person to do the right things and stay on the right path.
Dr. Kalam,
ReplyDeleteSome of the other issues that surrond the problem are the pressure from co workers, personal economic issues (regular pay just won't do anymore) and "trying to keep up with the Joneses."!
Please read and discuss the "Use of Less Lethal Force and outlined in the Article I passed out in class.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the major findings?
Researchers Alpert and MacDonald found that departments that required a supervisor or other official to complete use of force reports had lower use of force rates. Another researcher, Terrill, found that close supervision of officers also held an association with lower use of force rates. Alpert and MacDonald also found in their research that departments that utilized force reports for a specific purpose had higher use of force rates.
In response to the article, I feel the major findings is being accountable behind the use of force. I don't feel the increased emphasis on supervison reduces incidents, because supervisors maybe behind some of the corruption themselves. They may advise officers not to report indicidents, so that their numbers look good-for them and the officers.
ReplyDeleteI feel the public will make any and all incidents known, before the department will. Their definitely out to protect their own.
Do you think the increased emphasis on supervision is a factor in reducing incidents of police brutality and use of force problems?
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that a higher emphasis on supervision is a huge factor in reducing police brutality and use of force issues. That does not mean that supervision alone will resolve these issues.
In my opinion, supervisors are the ones that are supposed to set an example and mentor younger less experienced officers. Involving them in reporting and documenting use of force incidents is a check and balance. Supervisors can work in the field with officers.
There are constraints to how effective the supervisor-oriented system can be. If a supervisor and officer work together to cover up an incident, this system falls apart at the seams. Whether it is done to protect the department or individual officers this system demands honesty and integrity from, not only officers but supervisors most of all.
@ Jessenia
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that some officers are still abusive even with cameras recording them. I have to say though that these are the camera's intended purpose. The cameras alone will not stop all abuse but they do deter to some extent.
The cameras being installed in police cars are meant to record incidents as they happen. This is not only for the public's protection but also for the officers and departments. When officers get caught they get punished which is ultimately the goal.
Regarding to the article. The major findings were that departments that used major supervision or some other official to complete use of force reprts have lower use of force rates than departments where the officer involved in each incident complete force reports. I do believe this can be one factor that can reduce force rates because officers are being monitored but I also believe that if there were to be an incident between an officer that maybe a supervisor might want to cover up so this incident wont blow up and get to the media, so that can be a gray area as well. However, I also believe in setting up cameras to supervise the officers.
ReplyDeleteLuis I agree with you about hoe effective can it be when we have an officer and a supervisor working together and wanting to cover up an incident. Why would the supervisor want to let such information out about his own department. I believe this can work at times but maybe not always this situation can also fall between corruption between the department and values and morals these officers have within themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with Federick that it has to do with poor hiring practices. I believe it has to do with much more than that like the way one is raised and what morals and values they hold.When PO are being hired they don't really show you that they can be corrupted how can you really see that unless they are put in a real situation when they act upon that crime. However I do agree with you that it can be the greed these officers can.
ReplyDeleteGoodnite everybody!
ReplyDeleteYes, they should suffer a harsh penalty when it comes down to being corrupt. In the reason being is that we as citizen look up to police officer; we depend on them for security, and protection, so how can we put our trust in them if they’re the same ones that hurting and putting us in danger.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luis in the fact that senior officers nshould take on some responsibility in teacher the newer officers the expectations of their respective departments. Even though senior officers have their own responsibilities they should guide these newer officers on how to do their job correctly
ReplyDeleteI understand how barbelie justifies stricter penalties for PO. But if that's the case then all persons put in charge of others (i.e. doctors, teachers, gov't officials, etc) would have to suffer greater penalties as well and then justice would not be equal and fair. Just my opinion...
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
Good Morning...
ReplyDelete1) It needs to be mentioned how invaluable the experience this officer brings to all aspects of law enforcement and how much of an asset they really are. Also having formal education is not proof that the individual is qualified for any form of managment. Having said that, i believe in order to adjust to the constant changes of society and what they require of their law enforcement; having some type of formal education facilitates the troubleshooting aspect of management. Could the seasoned officer bring alot to the table refering to experience and knowledge aquired through years of service yes... but it is my experience that along with that also comes an ingraned "my way or the high way" type attitude that hinders proper and fair management.
2) A degree CAN (as opposed to will) help guide thought into a more troubleshooting type mindset whereas an officer without these tools can be a little lacking in the decision making process.
3) It definitely depends on the department. A small town in North Dakota might not require the type of policing that say NYC needs. When dealing with large cities or cities with a high crime rate (baltimore, d.c., etc) it should be mandatory to have a college degree.
4) My degree will help me enter a Master's program that "should" set me apart from the rest and facilitate my earning of a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the career field of my choice.
1. I do belive a police officer that has been on the force for 15 years can be qualified for a promotion that of a management position. This officer has experience in this line of work and now will be able to assit other new officers.
ReplyDelete2. A college degree or an educated officer can be an asset to any police department. Decision making will more than likely help the officer as well as the department and be a factor in "good cop "bad cop". I also believe it is up to an individual person, his/her morals, up-briging, ethics and critical reasoning.
ReplyDeleteSCPTJ33? What are you are in two of the groups?
ReplyDelete3. I think it's based on that particular department or position. A entry Level position is just that, but, I believe the police department job decription for a police officer should be updated. Min. of AA degree and traning beyound the academy.
ReplyDeleteI think I post some comment on the wrong group....
ReplyDeletescptj33 is Soincerae Woods
ReplyDeleteFredrick, I definitely agree with you; just because you have a formal education doesn’t mean that you’re a more qualified candidate then someone that has 15 years experience. In my opinion someone with experience is more of an asset than one without experience however, it’s cheaper to hire someone without experience. Nevertheless, I would seek for the more knowledgeable individual and propose to him/her to seek a degree in the future.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know education is formal way of gaining more knowledge and understanding. It teaches and helps us prepare ourselves for the real world problem. It also helps one utilize their critical thinking skills, analytical skills and to use all available resources to be a good officer. One without a formal education will be lacking in certain areas as far as education wise. Although, I think that on the job training and in-service training also prepare you with decision making process.
ReplyDeleteWorking for Miami Dade County, a degree and experience is a must to qualify for certain positions within different departments. So, having a degree will definitely help me be a more qualified candidate for promotion opportunity as they become available and will also help me get into a Master’s program of my choice in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think a college degree should be mandatory entry level for any higher position where the earnings is great. Being an officer comes with a lot of responsibility it’s, not just taking order and following rules and regulation it’s also based on making reasonable decision based on people lives. As an employer I would definitely want to hire someone that is knowledgeable education wise oppose to someone that only has a high school diploma, even though the obligation for the job is just a high school diploma. I think they need to change the requirement to least an AA degree. I know going back to school and earning a degree has really change my perspective of life. I don’t think a person straight out of high school is ready for all that responsibility. In my opinion a person straight out school is only thinking about the earnings they can acquire.
ReplyDeleteHow are we as a group suppose to agree and disagree with others when we have other people posting in different areas?
ReplyDeleteOK Soincere,
ReplyDeleteThanks
YOu can post there if you wish. Remember, I will be grading all of them. If there are not enough posts here, you can go to the other format.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should try to stay where they are and respond there.
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
1) I think that someone on the force with 15 years of experience is definitely worthy of consideration for a senior management position. I do believe though that Berbelie had a very good point for promoting people with the experience but no degree.
ReplyDeleteIt should be a requirement of the promotion to go and get the requisite degrees. These days there are plenty of programs out there for working people to get their degrees (bachelors and masters especially) while they work.
The only drawback or negative I could see an executive or director considering in not hiring someone with the degree regardless of experience is the lack of initiative that could be perceived. Many branches and agencies of the government offer cost sharing and/or reimbursement programs for employees to go to school. If someone isn't already taking advantage of that then they could be seen as not wanting to better themselves. There could be exceptions as well...such as single parents, etc., who may not have had the time to pursue a degree.
2) I believe that a college degree helps in a few ways when an officer is on the street. As you stated earlier professor...you can't learn street smarts in college. Though maybe there should be there is no major that covers that. An officer can only pick that up in the field.
ReplyDeleteWhere the degree helps is in combining the skills learned in the field with the critical thinking skills learned in college. Those two skills alone, when combined properly, can be two of the most effective tools in an officer's arsenal. It is having the ability to not only spot a problem but to analyze and execute a solution are not always things that training can cover. There has to be theory to go along with that training. When those two are combined you get an officer that fit many roles. That versatility is what police departments and law enforcement agencies are looking for in new hires.
I agree with Luis as far as the perceptions go... but I believe that they are more indicative of just lack of motivation and/or having personal issues (children, wife, etc). Time management and prioritizing properly are essential skills in L.E. and even more so in management.
ReplyDeleteBerbelie:
ReplyDeleteI am agree with you when you say that a degree should be mandatory entry level for higher position where the earnings is great. However as I stated earlier I don't think it should be required for ALL entry level position, just because some people cannot afford going to college doesn't mean that they are not responsible or cannot make reasonnable decisions.
@ Missiva and Berbelie
ReplyDeleteI agree with you two as well that for certain positions where the starting salaries are high should require a degree of some kind. If you really think about it though most "professional" careers (i.e. lawyers, doctors, C.P.A.s, etc.) already require high levels of schooling and certifications. Even social workers generally need a masters degree for most positions and don't really get paid very much.
I think that as a society we are in need of people who are able to deal with our current problems with current solutions. For instance, to catch a computer hacker, law enforcement would need people who has capabilities that can match the criminal. Training alone can not provide those skills but in combination with education they can.
@ Kilian
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you about time management and prioritization. You mention about its importance in law enforcement but those are skills that are important in any sector. Whether you are in finance, engineering or a non-profit you hear these buzzwords all over the place.
All employers want their employees to be as productive as possible while they are at work. Part of that productivity is being able to prioritize. If you can do those things, no matter the field, you can pretty much write your own ticket. While there are trainings and workshops where they teach or lecture on these skills, employees who can do this without that expense are usually identified and promoted the fastest to retain them longer.
3)Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
ReplyDeleteI think that I would have to agree with Kilian's response to this earlier. If you are in a rural community or in a small town you would probably not need the same level of education as you might in a large metropolitan area.
I think that the caliber of criminals in metropolitan areas and large cities are much higher. The crimes tend to be much more complex and the perpetrators much more sophisticated. Let's not also forget to mention the tools and methods tend to also be more sophisticated as well.
That is not to say that smaller communities wouldn't deal with these types of crimes and criminals but I just think it is far less prevalent.
It goes back to a concept usually associated with affirmative action. In affirmative action people are hired and the staff make up would be similar in appearance to the community at large. If the average person in an area has a high school diploma or less, you probably would not have as high a standard as say a metropolitan area where there may be a higher concentration of people with college educations.
4)Will your college degree help you with your career? If yes, how?
ReplyDeleteI think that my degree would help me with my career because of the coursework and instruction received. If I were to get a job that didn’t relate to my degree I might be less inclined to agree but there are still skills I have acquired in getting my degree that transcend the field where I am employed. There are analytical and critical thinking skills that are a part of the coursework. There are team building and communication skills taught through the instruction that one might not be able to develop through training alone.
As I stated in an earlier post, these are skills that are essential in any profession or trade. These skills are sought after by large corporations or small businesses. It doesn’t matter where you go or what you do, as long as you have these skills you will be sought after by any potential employer.
3) About Luis' Aff. Action comment you hit the nail io the head. In theory AA is supposed to do what you mentioned, what actually takes place I really don't know since this is not an area of the news I follow.
ReplyDelete