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?
1. Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteThe Rampart Scandal is a typical corruption problem that became a culture in a section of Los Angeles Police Department due too poor supervision. Corruption takes time to become embedded into employees. Once corruption becomes a culture, it will be extremely difficult to eradicate of it. New employees will become corrupted in order to be accepted in to the current agency’s culture, and because they do not know better, they will think that the corrupted behavior is a correct norm. When corruption spread to supervisor, it becomes a cancer that can only be eradicated by an outside agency through criminal investigation or by the termination off all the employees. Supervisors must take immediate corrective actions when the first signs of corruption is identified within subordinates.
2. Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteGreed, bad hiring practices and lack of effective training are all combinations that can make a good or a bad police officer. Greed can influence an officer with poor morals and principals easier than an officer with good ones. Good and bad morals of police applicants should be identified during the hiring process in order to weed out the bad applicants. Good departmental standards are reinforce with proper training by showing the officer proper methods of professional policing. Such as, interpersonal skills, law, use of force, defensive tactics and etc. The proper implementation of all of these combinations will aid any department in the reduction of possibilities for corruption.
3. When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteOfficers should face stringent penalties on a case by case basis. For example, if the officer is on duty and commits ANY crime, the punishment should be stringent. During other crimes while off-duty, it should be in a case by case basis. For instance, if and off-duty officer is charge with petty crimes he/she should not be face with stringent punishment, such as fitting in public. In the other hand, if an off-duty officer is caught dealing drugs, he/she should face stiffer penalties. Many will say that officers should always be held on a higher standard, and this is true depending on the circumstances. We should not forget that laws were made equal for the people. It does not mean that police officers are different than the people.
We when we talk about humans it is very hard to explain their behavior. People have many reasons while they do certain things rather it’s good or bad. I think it was a little bit of greed mixing with peer pressure. We can’t really blame it on bad hiring, when most companies hire they get the good and the bad. Or a person that gets hired may be good at first and then become corrupted. When people try to get a job they put their good first and they also play the role to get a job. When an officer commits crime against their communities I believe that they should not suffer more stringent penalties, only if they hold other top officials to the same scale. Because people with power who do crime against the whole communities, gets a slap on the wrist which is not fair. If you are going to hold officers to that standard, hold everyone else their too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with flavo quiroz, if an officer commits a crime they should be held to the rules of society. But if an officer commits a crime while on duty they should be held to higher standard. Officers have powers and we need to make sure that they are not using it to help their pockets and arrest people just because. I believe administration puts too much pressure on officers at time and it may causes them to do certain things, rather good or bad.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior? No there is not an explantation to the behavior that the officers done. Because our law enforcement is here to protect their community from such behavior. They should not be caught up in any type of miconduct. When they beame police officers they are sworn in to protect and serve in the upmost. Yes they are human to but that type of behavior should have never taken place.
ReplyDeleteAretha
ReplyDeleteThere is no excuse for this type of behavoir except for greed. Each and every officer gets paid at least every two weeks so what was the proble? They wanted more money in y opinion. These officers had no respect for themselves, family, nor the department; therefore, they all should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communties because they are here to protect us not rob us.
Flavio:
ReplyDeleteI agree that supervision is a parft of the solution. Quick and decisive action and the establishment of a culture supported at the highest levels is the way to go.
When we think about issues surrounding government corruption at high levels, we can kind of see a whole set of double standards....maybe?
The explanation for this type of behavior is POWER. Some police officers feel that just because they are police officers they are untouchable. Some police officers feel that the public will not be trusted over them. As a result of that, they abuse their “power”.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this can be because of greed. BUT I do not think it was because of bad hiring practices because a police officer doesn’t make the decision once they are hired, they want to be a corrupted cop. I think that they gradually feel and behave this way when they see that it is very easy for them to get away with certain things.
I do think that when officers commit crimes against their communities, they SHOULD suffer stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities. When we hear police we feel that we can trust them. On the other hand, when we think about the criminals in our community we feel like we can not compare them to a police officer. So if a police officer breaks that trust, I think we should treat them as if they were a criminal in the community and with that they will not be a police officer. Doing this will make the community give their trust back to the police officer.
Yes Shantell:
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding Human Behavior is a challenge. While we can understand through analysis how people commit crime, become violent, or become corrupt, it is quite another thing to detect it in everyday life.
Bernethia:
ReplyDeleteShould they be punished more severely? Do we need to send a stronger message to those in policing professions?
What do you think?
Genia:
ReplyDeleteYou state, "So if a police officer breaks that trust, I think we should treat them as if they were a criminal in the community and with that they will not be a police officer. Doing this will make the community give their trust back to the police officer".
Do you mean when they get caught committing a crime? Or when they do things like take free meals or coffee and donuts?
Fanel Remelus
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if there is an explanation for this types of behavior, there probably some studies that explained why a police office would do such thing. These kinds of things happen all around the country or the world. We can never know 100 % what person do today, it’s guarantee to do the same tomorrow; people changed, that’s the reason we will always have corruptions and crimes. I think we could said it was because of greed, bad hiring practice and lack of effective training, all of these played a major role on police corruptions. I don’t think they should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities because a crime is a crime it don’t matter who commit it or when it was commit, the penalty should be equal to all criminals. Bottom line it’s always the victim who suffer the most. With that says we should do everything possible not get victimized.
I disagree with all of you who think that a police should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities, after all remember that the police was doing their duty as helping the community, they serve, help, and protect the community, so all of that means nothing, compare to a criminals that been committing crimes their whole life. Come on people let's be more realistic. just because who did something bad does not me all your good is forgotten, but if you do all bad like a criminal they should get good out of it. I don't think that seat right to the other honest officers that are serving their community proudly.
ReplyDelete1. Is there an explanation for this type of behavior?
ReplyDeleteAfter briefly researching the “Rampart Scandal”, the only thing that comes to my mind is abuse of power. Corruption develops through time with the help of many factors. In this case for example, I believe the reason these police officers behaved in that manner is because they were abusing their power but at the same time, their behavior developed through time and their greed for power became corruption since there was not enough supervision. This behavior was strengthened by greed, bad hiring tactics but most of all lack of supervision.
2. Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
Yes, I believe these three factors were key factors that led to corruption but also lack of supervision. I think of our checks and balances practice in our federal government, we should be able to apply this practice in all government agencies since there is always greed because we are all human. After we become government officials and go through training, we are still exposed to greed because we are humans and that is why we should have “checks and balances” in our agencies. I strongly believe that the main cause of this corruption scandal was lack of supervision.
3. When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities? It’s complicated to decide whether or not they should suffer more stringent penalties. But at the end of the day, police officers are here to protect and serve. If they decided to have a job that requires not only the passion but a heart to serve their community they should suffer more stringent penalties. Even if they are not on duty, they were trained to protect, therefore, they should know better.
I disagree with Mr. Remelus. You said we have to be more realistic. But if you decide to be a police officer, you decide to protect, why would you commit a crime against your own community and expect to be treated as "regular criminal"?
ReplyDeleteMs. Erika, what do you mean a crime against your community and expect to be treated as regular criminal, so the criminal did not commit a crime against his or her community. all I'm saying is why would you want to punished someone who’s been productive for a long or short time while they were serving the community worst than the one who's been doing only bad to the community that would be the criminals in that case, for me that does not make any sense.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with what Flavio Quiroz said. Yes i do believe that it is greed that causes people to do what they do.However, he stated"bad hiring practices and lack of effective training are combinations that makes a good and bad cop", i disagree. Every cop goes threw the same hiring process and training and they all are not corrupt, therefore the training and hiring has nothing to do with it, everyone has their own mind and are going to do what they want.
ReplyDeleteok, but when they decided to SERVE and PROTECT the community, they know they are expected to be more than just a good citizen. They are supposed to be an example to society.
ReplyDeletei disagree with Fanel Remelus. How can you say that the police were doing their duties? They were acting as if they were criminals in the community therefore, they should be punished more severe than anyone else. Their job was to protect and serve not still drugs and serve them back to the community!
ReplyDeleteOk Erika, they are supposed, nice choice of word, we all know how many time we have been disappointed by the one we trust the most; leaders or role models. By now we need to realize that as human that we are not perfect. as our life and environment changed our morals changed with it. I think we can only expect the best from ourselves, if we trust someone to help us like the police or any other trusted possible. if these people failed us we should not punished them harder, in fact I think we should thank them for all their hard work and show compaction for at least the time they serve. After all I think we both will agree that they have done more good to the community compare to a criminal; so why would we want to punish them harsher.
ReplyDelete1-I don't think theres a explanation for this type of behavior. i think that went people are in a certain situation they tend to react different, and as to corruption. Corruption is everywhere you can't really stop corruption from happening.
ReplyDeleteYasnay.
ReplyDeleteIs there an explanation for this type of behavior?
I don’t think there is an explanation for that type of behavior regardless of the circumstance. How can you explain that the individuals that are chosen to protect our community are actually corrupting it? When they’re suppose to fight and eliminate that type of behavior. I truly believe is intolerable. I agree totally with Flavio it is a cancer very difficult to eliminate. Corruption is a very serious problem for our society. It’s one of the factors why some people don’t trust the police department. I mean, how they are going trust our officer when they are the first one’s to break the law. Of course, not all of them are like that. We have a lot of good officers enforcing the law in our streets.
From My opion those that think that it was because of greed i think are wrong,don't just focus on the fact that it happen with a polie officer. 2)should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeletejust because you would think that they know better than that does not mean that they should suffer more.There penalties should be the same as any other individual that would of committed the same crime. Yes there role is to protect and serve, However giving them a more severe penalties wouldnt be the right thing to do. For those that will choose to argue this see it this way: How many crimes have been committed by kids/students under the age of 17yrs?. yet every time it happens we tend to focus on the degree of the crime and that is how we tend to be a part and say what we think should be the outcome. we never say well last week a student killed another student lets give the next crime/situation that happens the same penalties without knowing at whos fault it is, and about the bad hiring and lack of training i don't think it would of made a difference. At the end the everyone knows from right and wrong.
Hi Prof. Kalam
ReplyDeleteI believe the criminal scandal called the 'Rampart Way' is only an exceptionally corruptive case and is not the status quo, although there is still some police corruption. There could be several explanations for this behavior. For instance, the lack of proper supervision and evaluation of officers from their supervisors, captains, lieutenants, and other various independent entities play a significant role in determining police behavior.
Furthermore, lack of proper implementation of commonly acceptable moral values as part of police training greatly influences police behavior. Additionally, failure to provide psychological/religious guidance to law enforcement officer negatively influences law enforcement behavior. Additionally, breakdown of their families, greed, jealousy, post-traumatic disorders, and competition also trigger such incidents. Greed is definitely one of the causes of police brutality but is not the main root of the problem.
If officers commit rimes against their own community they should suffer more stringent penalties than criminals because they are granted a higher level of authority and power to abide by the law and promote the common good. If this power is used otherwise it could greatly harm a community. Therefore, in order to prevent such from happening sanction against law enforcement professionals should be more stringent. All means necessary to deter police corruption should be used.
Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
ReplyDeleteIt can be because of greed, I don’t think that the hiring and training has much to do with it because they all go through the same process. Even though, I do believe the way “now days” to be an officer is being promoted has a lot to do with it. Since, now days’ being an officer is seen like an “easy career” and a lot of people are doing it for the money & benefits, not with desire to help and protect our people. Am a strong believer that to be in a job that involve to serve and protect the community like is to be a law enforcement officer you got to have that seed inside of you to want to help our community. As long as “some” of our officers don’t have that set of mind we are going to continue seen all this shameful cases in our PD.
Fenel:
ReplyDeleteI agree that a crime is a crime...but should we not hold some to a higher standard such as those who are placed in positions of trust and with more "power" than we have?
People never look at the good things that police officers do, they always focus on the bad. Not all police officers are corrupt, but society thinks so. These man and women put their life on the line for me and you everyday. In this world we will always have problems; we should try to understand why corruptions take place, is may be because of the power, too much responsibility or even home problems. Police officers are human, but when you tell people that they just say they should have known better. We all know better, but sometimes we can not explain why we do certain thing are selves.
ReplyDeleteErika:
ReplyDeleteYou have covered your response in detail and bring out some points to support your perspective.
We make choices to do certain jobs..for wahtever the reason. These days it seems that money and job security are paramount (and why not?). Supervision and checks and balances are good. Additional attention should revolve around the culture and how to identify problems and build new cultures. Easier said than done...
Ineirys:
ReplyDeleteI like how you support your response. Cna we make better hiring decisions? If yes, how?
Jesus:
ReplyDeleteHolding supervision responsible is a step in the right direction. But don't you think there is some higher level of responsibility? What about police culture? How does that influence behavior?
Yasnay.
ReplyDeleteWhen officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
I think they should because they go through a process, they’re training and they chose to be an officer. They should have a superior knowledge; they’re supposed to know the law. As their own saying… “1st you ask them, 2nd you tell them and 3rd you make them”. Well, if they do that type of corrupted activity you make them suffer the consequences. They’re suppose to an example to the community. Again, as I said earlier they’re a lot of good, professional, with high morals and the heart to serve and protect officers out there.
test
ReplyDelete1.Is there an explanation for this type of behaivor?
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is an explanation for this type of behaivor. Police corruption typically is due to the belief that law enforcement officials are above the law which they enforce and invisible, with the mindset of "who are they going to call, the police? I am the police," this is where the abuse of power kicks in; they tend to believe that since they are part of a "brotherhood" if they are caught committing a crime by a fellow officer then that officer will just turn his/her face and give them a freebie. Do I think its fair, no but the reality is that it does happen often.
2.Was it because of greed? Was it because of bad hiring practices? Lack of effective training?
I strongly believe greed is the main reason for police corruption basically because it has many financial benefits, although done by illegal means it won't stop until they get caught. I don't believe its because of bad hiring practices for two reasons. One reason being that people can put on a front or a mask if it means that they will get the job at the end, they'll play the part by acting, speaking and believing whatever the accepted norms for that field are. The second reason is because most officers don't become a cop with the intention to be corrupted they slowly become corrupted while on the job. For these reasons bad hiring practices don't have much to do with the problem. I also don't believe that ineffective training has much to do with it either because even with the best training, corruption is tempting many people can't resist temptation after a certain number of times especailly for police officers who have the mindset that they are invisible.
3.When officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
I believe that officers should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities if they commit a crime against their own communities. The reason why I agree that officers should suffer more stringent penalties is because I see it as they have breached their contract or promise of PROTECTING our communities from these types of behaivers and misconducts. They have broken the trust of thier communities and I believe that once they commit a crime that their badge should be taken away. Why continue to give the power of authority to an individual who has abused it? Some may disagree but this is my belief. Strigent penalities are a must. Corrupted officers are viewed by their communities as traitors.
Is there an explanation for this type of behavior? In opinion there is no explanation, there are excuses from those who fall by the wayside. The root of these “dirty deeds” is the ill intent that every corrupt police officer possess, but most are unable to control. On the bright side (for the deviant individuals), the law usually uses its discretion to lessen the harshness when punishing (due to the fact they are exempt from direct justice and lack culpability). Yet another excuse, it is like a “get out of jail w/ a slap on the wrist card”; possessing a badge. My hypothesis states “every corrupt officer mentally weighs the reward versus the punishment if discovered” just like any other “think they are smart criminal”. Which exemplifies the facts that all of the criminal components are present from conception of their crime until they are brought to justice? Closing there aren’t explanations for this type of behavior in a profession such as law enforcement, just those who find excuses NOT to admit that they chose the wrong career.
ReplyDeleteWe can always make better hiring decisions,some might even support the idea that makeing a better hiring decision/process might decrease corruption.i myself think that no matter if the hiring process would become more intense or strick it doesnt mean that at the end of the day,the officer/individual wont really forget what they were taught at the very begining.
ReplyDeleteI am finally signed up after 5hrs...
ReplyDeleteI agre with many of your comments.
There are several reason for that kind of behavoir:
Many criminologists think that there is a conflict between goals (such as whealt, success) to acheive and the mean to obtain them as an obstacle: the Strain theory which leads to antisocial disorder and criminal behavoir; thus a contradiction with conventional social Norms, a subsequence theory named social deviance.
I support the utilitarian perspective theory of the classical school wich view crime based on free will, greed, personal need, and can be controlled by the fear of criminal sanctions.
Based on " Lex dura, sed dura lex ", in latin which mean that the law is tough but it is the law, no one is exempt.
Even with the most rigid recrutment procedure to screen and train law enforcement personels, it is extremely difficult to predetermine, predict human behavoir. After all, as a guardian of the law, protector of the society, servant of humanity, there should be never be any plaid bargening, special concideration nor exception regarding sentensing. These negative behavoirs are a disgrace for the entire judicial system already in failure, and, an example should be drawn to enhance his prestige.
Zero tolerence should be adopted; throw the book at the corropted officers.
ineiryszapata09
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, "We can always make better hiring decisions,some might even support the idea that making a better hiring decision/process might decrease corruption", what are some examples? I can't think of ways to better our law enforcement hiring process to prevent police corruption, so I am interested to hear your thoughts.
All Students in Group:
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the article I passed out in class to respond to the following:
With regard to the use of deadly force, what did Fyfe find in the 1979 study? For example, what was the major finding? What was the effect on the disparity between African Americans and Whites shot by police?
What do you think the effects would be in Miami-Dade if the policy was implemented to reduce and restrict weapons use by police?
Please respond to your classmates as well as responding to the questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. Kalam,
ReplyDeleteDouble standards is a common issue in many institutions. The elimination of double standards must come from upper management. If management leads by example, the rest will follow. Double standards are definitely a sign of corruption.
Prof Kalam, you mentioned that holding supervisor responsible was a step closer. Why is that??
ReplyDeleteI agree with Flavio, about the double standards being a sign of corruption.
ReplyDeleteMr. Remelus,
ReplyDeleteYou are basically stating we cannot trust anyone but ourselves, but I believe we, in society, expect to be protected from police not victimized by them. For example, when we wake up in the morning and we go to work we have an EXPECTATION of not being murdered or attacked by some random person at work. Why? Because there are laws and whoever break those rules has to pay the consequences. The same thing applies to the expectation we have from society to officials. We do not pay for academy training and all to expect police to commit crime or corruption. Yes I understand no one is perfect but at the same time, I expect protection from the police and not crime. So if there are certain laws to fight police corruption that are more severe than the regular criminal, then we can be proactive and prevent police corruption by applying these severe laws. Otherwise, why waste our time training our police officers if we are not going to expect something in return? This isn’t about trusting police officers, this is about the commitment they have with society. Police officers are not only supposed to protect but they are COMMITTED or at least they should.
Mr. Fyffe discovered significant findings in his 1979 study. 1. It reduced the overall number of firearm discharges 2. There are no unanticipated adverse consequences that resulted in injuries or death to law enforcement officers 3. There were minimum attempts by officer to evade the requirement. 4. Last but not least his study significantly influenced Supreme Court Decision Tenessee vs. Gadner.
ReplyDeleteThe effect on disparity between African Americans and whites shot killed by law enforcement was cut in half.
If restrictive shooting policies are implemented in Miami Dade County I believe that we will benefit from the same outcome that the New York City Police Department had.
Flavio:
ReplyDeleteDo as I say and not as I do is a terrible but common inference. Double standards are at the heart of corruption in govt.
This applies to upper levels, such as the mayors office, the board, as well as the sargeant, LT, Capt. and above. To change culture is to change the fabric of what exists.
Erika and Fanel:
ReplyDeleteBuilding trust, especially with your safety and possibly your life at stake, is something that drives every human. Its a tough call ask for perfection when we know it may not be possible....just a thought
Ineirys:
ReplyDeleteSupervisors are the "gatekeepers". They are charged with maintaininn policies and procedures and makiong sure we follow them.
As a first step, they should be held acccountable for making others accountable. Supervision is a tough job.
Hi Prof. Kalam, going back to your previous questions in regards to police culture and behavior…
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe police culture influences behavior. Based on that statement, we can conclude that the root of the problem lies in each and every police officer’s upbringing. Those who grew in hostile environment, who lacked moral support and guidance in their households, did not achieve (for the most part) a strong set moral values and ethics. When I write strong I mean moral values that do not weaver under any circumstance e.g. finding millions of dollars bills and being able to turn the whole amount to the police dept. regardless of the officer financial needs, being able to turn in a vast amount of cocaine and not keep it for personal misuse, or being able to turn in a complaint in regards to police brutality regardless of close relationship with other police officers.
Although effective supervision is necessary, being able to "nourish" police officers with strong moral set of values, through different means e.g. faith groups, intensive training, therapies, mentoring groups; we will be able to ultimately change corruptive police officers from the inside out. Furthermore, this will act as reinforcement for those whose moral values are already strong. Such initiatives will encourage police officers to abide by all the law and regulations in a professional, honest and responsible fashion.
With regard to the use of deadly force, what did Fyfe find in the 1979 study? What was the major finding?
ReplyDeleteThe study found that a new policy restricting the use of deadly force in NYC Police Department was effective in reducing the overall number of firearms discharges, did not result in any unanticipated adverse consequences such as officer deaths or injuries or an increase in the crime rate and Fyfe's data indicated only minimal attempts by officers to evade the requirements of the policy.
What was the effect on the disparity between African Americans and Whites shot by police?
The disparity between African Americans and Whites shot by police was cut in half.
What do you think the effects would be in Miami-Dade if the policy was implemented to reduce and restrict weapons use by police?
I think it would be a good idea to implement this policy. Studies show that by its implementation crime rate does not increase and that there are less injuries and deaths. I believe that our community will feel a little bit safer against police misconduct with brutality if this policy were to be implemented to reduce and restrict weapons use by police. It would be interesting to see if although crime rates wouldn't increase, would criminals caught in action become more hostile and agressive knowing that law enforcement is more restricted?
TO: ineiryszapata09
ReplyDeleteHi, I just wanted to share some thoughts in regards to your comment about stringent punishment for police officers. I think you have a very valid general point, but there are certain points where I disagree
I will begin by ask you the following:
Should a surgeon and a nurse be charge with the same punishments for criminal mal practice?
Definitely no. Why? Because a surgeon is the qualified expert to perform certain operation a nurse can not do. Although the surgeon earns more money, he/she is aware of the risks and reasonability acquired by his expertise. He assumes a greater risk of liability due to the complexity of the job. Therefore, due to his power, authority and expected expertise he will be rewarded much for his/her work. On the other hands, if he/she fails to do so because of negligence, he/she should receive a more strict punishment. One main reason for this is to deter mishandling of power and authority. Same concept must apply to ALL Law Enforcement officers. More Responsibilities=More rewards & Privileges=greater Risk.
Then again I think your comments were valid and very interesting as well
Good article Dr. Kalam, in theory Fyfe tried to improve an excessive use of force problem that many police departments were facing. Indeed it worked, stats don’t lie. However, it worked not due to the use of force matrix that he created. When departments implement policies the employees will follow, especially on issues of high liability like uses of force. Making supervisors write extensive reports for a use of force will influence supervisors to pressure their subordinates to not to become involve in uses of force, or in worst case scenarios, they will simply not advise their supervisor of the occurrence; a result of lazy supervisors who tried to avoid extra work. The use of force report is an excellent idea, but it should be simplified.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the use of force matrix, my department was one of the first to adopt it. However, they dumped it 2-3 years ago. The Use of Force Matrix was a blessing for attorneys who sued police departments. A use of force incident is very chaotic and spontaneous. Elements of uses of forces are different on every case, and the Matrix created a lot of problems. For example, if a 100 lbs-5 feet- female officer is facing a 300 lbs pure muscle (ripped) subject, it will not be the same if the officer had the upper hand on the subject. The female officer, for obvious reasons, should be justified to use a higher level of force for subject’s compliance. The matrix failed to address this type of issues.
1.With regard to the use of deadly force, what did Fyfe find in the 1979 study? For example, what was the major finding? What was the effect on the disparity between African Americans and Whites shot by police?
ReplyDeleteThe major finding in Fyfe study was that a new policy restricting the use of deadly force in the New York City Police department was effective in reducing the overall number of firearms discharges and it also stated that crime rate did not increase and there were no adverse consequences such as officer deaths or injuries. The disparity between African American and Whites shot by police was cut in half and that was the effect of it, which is a great effect/result.
2. What do you think the effects would be in Miami-Dade if the policy was implemented to reduce and restrict weapons use by police?
It’s hard to say what would happen if we reduce and restrict weapon use by police in Miami-Dade. South Florida is very multi-cultural therefore we don’t know what to expect from our “Miami culture”. I’d say there would be a great controversy in regards to that and it would have a great impact in our agencies. We could only hope to obtain a great result but I think it would be very hard for our police agencies or officers to accept this. There might be some who agree, but I would think the majority would be against it and it would probably have a negative response.
I agree with Flavio, it is a great article. We do need improvement in that area, and yes perhaps, it would work in our Miami-Dade. Like Flavio said, "stats don't lie"
ReplyDeleteErika...
ReplyDeleteI realized that you answered question number 2 on whether or not our community would accept the policy but what kind of effect do you think it would have on our community? Do you think it would have a negative or positive impact on our community as far as crime rate is considered if we were to implement this policy of reduced and restricted weapons of use by police?
With regard to the use of deadly force, what did Fyfe find in the 1979 study? For example, what was the major finding?
ReplyDeleteFyfe found that 1.a new policy restring the use of deadly force in the New York DP was effective in reducing the overall number of firearms discharges.
2. The new policy did not result in any unanticipated adverse consequences such as officer deaths or injuries or an increase in the crime rate. 3. Fyfe’s data indicated only minimal attempts by officers to evade the requirements of the policy. 4. Fyfe later played an important role in the Supreme Court in a 1985 case, where that decision spurred the adoption of restrictive shooting policies by agencies across the country.
TO All:
ReplyDeleteAmongst other important concepts, the article shows the need for implementation of sound and effective protocols. Execution of any measure must be done with careful planning and really capable oversight; following the mission, creating benchmarks, and assessing results...and not being afraid to make changes.
The effect was cut in half. This period coincided with the adoption of restrictive deadly force policies across the country.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the effects would be in Miami-Dade if the policy was implemented to reduce and restrict weapons use by police?
I think it can work, as long as weapons in general are more restricted to the public. Because, now days in Miami there are more individuals in the streets with deadly weapons and even sometimes with better weapons than the actual PD, what do we solve with restricting the weapons to our officers when the public has it? How do we protect our officers?
I feel that if restrictive shooting policies are implemented in Miami Dade County their would be no different outcome, it would be exactly the same as New York.
ReplyDeletethe major finding was that Fyfe (1979) found that the NYPD was effective in reducing the overall number of firearms discharges, also the amounts of shhot and killed were cut in half.
ReplyDeleteI agree favio and erika very good article. We do need a change.
ReplyDeleteIf the restricted shooting polices are implemented in Miami-Dade county i don't think the outcome would be any less than the one for NY.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Flavio Quiroz. I believe double standards is a common issue in many institutions. However i dont believe double standards are not a sign of corruption.
ReplyDeleteQuestion to Yaz?- i agree to disagree if you take away the use of force to individual not including police officers, How are individual suppose to protect themself from does that have the source of weapons? With saying this it does not mean that we shouldnt control what right now seems hard.
ReplyDeleteTo Jesus Reyes, your funny!!!. I'm glad we can agree to disagree.( i see things different):)
ReplyDeleteYes,Dr. Kalam I think our law enforcement should be puinsh more because they are here to protect and serve; not to break the law.
ReplyDeleteineirys.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant to say was that... how can we restrict weapons to our officers, when criminals out there have those deadly weapons?
I just don't see the logic in that! I understand that every individual has the right to protect themself. So, if they can why not our officers that are actually facing criminals and all the danger that comes with that day by day.
to Yaz, got your point
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Flavio about the greed, bad hiring practices, and lack of effevtive training. Just like he said greed is there even if you are a good cop or a bad cop. The training process to should be more stricter.It takes committed and dedication.
ReplyDeletejust testing
ReplyDeleteok Ineirys. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aretha about restictive policies and imprementation they would be the same.
ReplyDeleteIn the 70's NYC laws were much different than those of the south, including Dade County. NY adopted capital punisment late, but had very strong law against firearms. Tha south was always more liberal. Excessive fore, deadly force, corruption was always part of the NYPD. Similar cases of use of deadly fore were reported in both areas under different circonstances, most unjustified. The implimented changes are for the better; as a whole, we should have a more standadize approach throughout the country regarding police predures, including the use of deadly, lethal forces, and non.
ReplyDeleteToo many advocates are protecting the crimals who have too many rights. The concern citizens shoul have a different approch, very supportive of the criminal justice system, we are too tolerant.
Risks should be minimized ( a 100 lbs female officer should either have a partner of desk duty).
Greater fire power should be provided more often to local law enforcment officer to counter act heavily armed offenders.
Let us not kid ourself; if our law enforcement system is questionable, our judicial system is a failure. We have a problem.
Limited applications of principles in differents localiites will not bring solutions, safety our socity in general.
Law enforment officers should have at their disposal greater fire power than criminals at all time. Why should'nt they?
ReplyDeletei agree with you saint.
ReplyDeleteWas it because of greed? The greed w/ in the dept is a manifestation of the dept‘s norm, more or less a snowball effect of corruption. By nature man desires to know, and it is said that curiosity kills the cat. For example, take a new officer from an academy class w/ out true integrity and he will fit into the dept’s norm of corruption and develop the same taste for greed. Take one with a strong sense of autonomy and integrity and that officer will quickly be out of a job unless they transition adopting the etiquette of fellow officers.
ReplyDeleteThere is never a logical explanation when police officers break the law. However,many times officers think that even though they are breaking the law their still doing the community a greater good. For example, officers that patrol in low income urban communities may feel or have a negative cognition that many of the citizens in that area are criminal suspects or depending on the culture may be immigrants. Which leads to racial profiling and feeling above the law. Alot of this behavoir stems from the police officers ethics, culture, belief and moral character. The mere fact is, that there is no justification to police deviant behavior they either take on the role to abide by the law or to engage in criminal acts.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a different opinion on why do police officers involve themselves in this type of behavior. Do they become corrupt or are they already corrupt. At the end of the day we need them. We will never have a perfect society, but we can always make it better. Somewhere, some how we have lost respect for police officers and they have lost respect for us. We need to sit down and see where we went wrong with each other. We can’t always point the finger at other; we need start accepting reasonability for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWas it because of bad hiring practices? One huge invisible “ who you know “ practice that has led many professional entities on a downward spiral due to the many short comings of applicants who are hired are swept under that rug, for the reason they know “the man-in-charge”. I believe in any system to be effective rather than successful, there must constantly be improvisations to plans that where implemented in a fashion to keep every link in the chain closely linked. Is self-government an issue when it comes to hiring? Maybe once it is put under a microscope, you will find there is a quota to be met or deficiency in man power demands hiring standards to be lowered. Allowing weeds in that will eventually add to an existing problem consequently deterring sound hiring from its harmony, redirecting all the focused energy on exterminating weeds at the root. A dept might skip or over look cues that when not faced w/ deadlines or pressure that would normally remove an applicant from a pool. How can a deeply rooted hiring practice be revamped? Re-evaluate and re-evaluate again. Add of course more intricate questionnaires and investigations of the individual surroundings and not just the individual.
ReplyDeleteWhen officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities?
ReplyDeleteyes, I think so because they are here to protect and serve their commmunity and not to commit a crime against them. if they don't love the job they are doing while did they become a police officer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn a corrupt law enforcement matrix, the hero only lives long enough to become the villain. So I ask, what is a sit down worth is when you are dealing with a predetermined fate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elise we really don't know why a police officer break the law. we should have some sense of intergrity and morals.
ReplyDeleteFrye’s study has its pros and cons. I can see the gains, but I also see a double-edged sword.
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.
To: Shantell
ReplyDeleteI can agre with you with some points that you made especially when you say that we can blame it on greed and peer pressure. Also I do not think it is because of bad hiring it is just human nature.
To: Aretha
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say these officers do not have respect for themselves, family nor the department. With that, they should suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals.
To: Fanel Remelus
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you because you think that police oficers should not sufer more stringent penalties after committing a crime. I can agree that we are all humans and we should be treated fairly BUT if it someone that we put all of our trust in than there punishment should be a more harsh punishment. With that there would be a lesson learned for not only the police officer but for those who thinks about committing a crime knowingly that they are representing a police department.
To: Erika
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you mention about the lack of supervision. BUT who will have time to sit and watch a police officer to see if he is doing wrong or right, especially if all are not corrupted and are dedicated to their job, that would be like a waste of time supervising them.
Was it because of greed, bad hiring practices or lack of effective training? I would have to go with greed. Officers are expected to enforce the laws of the community and by that an officer has a certain degree of authority. Many times officers misuse their authority for personal gain. Im sure that most of those officers never intended to be corrupt cops. They had the training, they knew laws better than the average citizen and the consequences and that would follow if broken. However, with power comes responsibility and personal self restraint to make decisions based on the OATH they swore. They have no one to blame but themselves!
ReplyDeleteBad Hiring? Many times people will put their best foot forward on thier applications and interviews. It's very hard to determine how the individual will perform once they are hired. Unless the proper proceedures were ignored (qualifications, background checks, etc.) it would have be very hard to determine if these people should of been hired or not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you when you stated that law enforcement officers " had the training, they knew laws better than the average citizen and the consequences and that would follow if broken". As I wrote to another classmate once you are in a position of authority not only you gain more power, privileges and rewards but also more responsibilities , including but not limited to more severe punishments.
ReplyDeleteWhen officers commit crimes against their own communities, should they suffer more stringent penalties than the criminals in their communities? Yes they should.
ReplyDeleteIts one thing to break the law as an average citizen. However, its another thing to break the law after taking an oath NOT to break the law. I believe that law enforcement personal must be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. The fear should exist for all law enforcers that if they choose to commit a crime that they will be prosecuted under the full extent of the law.
However, because of connections and unwritten rules, many law enforcement personel know that they could get off easy if caught committing a crime. "Professional Courtesy" as many laws enforcers know it, allows them to get off easier without ever being ticketed or arrested. Though it is understandable at times, that same courtesy should then extend to everyone or withheld from everyone.
For example, we all know that if one cop pulls over another cop (on or off duty) for a traffic violation that more than likely that officer will never get ticketed. If the fear of the consequence (ticket) doesnt exist, then the fear of the violation wouldn't exist (traffic violation).
This might seem like a small matter. However, this begin the pattern in many law enforcement personal that they are above the law. Soon, without even realizing, the gray areas become wider and the clearly defined lines become more blurred.
I disagree with Shantell.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "corrupt or not we do need them." However, the reality is if they are corrupt or their oath has been compromised we dont need them. That thinking is what has most corrupt law enforcement personal feeling like their crimes are no crimes at all or lesser than the average citizen. Corruption at every level need to be rooted out in order for the respect and trust law enforcers want and need from their communities.
That trust and respect must be earned over time by those that have upheld their oath and responsibility without breaking both their oath and the law.
I agree Bernethia... when u say (police officers)"they are here to protect and serve their commmunity and not to commit a crime against them. If they don't love the job they are doing while did they become police officers".
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, we hear all the pros and cons before stepping into certain fields of work. We know what the deal is to becomming an officer they either choose "good cop; bad cop" because their is no in between! An officer can follow his job discription correctly or act like some parts of it doesnt exist.
Flavio, I can understand your concept on how greed, bad hiring practices and lack of effective training are all combinations that can make a good or a bad police. You have very good points.
ReplyDeleteThis week we will discuss the issues surround hiring in the police force.
ReplyDeleteFollowing 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 the academy? If yes, why? If no, why not?
ReplyDeleteYes, because they have been on that police force for 15 years and they know how the department is running. The work experience help them to get that promotion but if it possible to seek more education that will be a plus.
2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
ReplyDeleteBecause with a higher education it would better prepare men and women to enter the police academy and the field of policing.A higher education develops a greater emapthy for diverse popluations and their life experience.
3. SDhould the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police department?
ReplyDeleteNo, because you have to concern about about the civil rights and the equal opportunity for all Americans.
4.Will your college degree help you with your career If yes?, How?
ReplyDeleteYes, because the experience that I have gotten from going to college will help me to a better communicater and respond the needs of a diverse public in a competent manner with civility and humanity.
(1) Yes, i believe that if a person has been on their job for 15 years, they are qualified for a promotion eventhought he or she may not have no formal education. Promotions should not be based on the level of education, it should be based on the skills that you may need for that certain position and i feel that with 15 years you will have all the experience that you would need in order to be successful.
ReplyDeleteYes, because that person has way than enough experience to qualify for promotion position. But the person should some type of class with in the agency to show that they are quality, because agencies offer different class with in the agency. I believe that education is very important, but education does not top experience in a particular field. I really think both factor are important when it comes to a promotion to a senior management position.
ReplyDeleteHaving a college degree may help and officer on the street in many ways. For example, when it is time to do paperwork, he/she maybe able to write good reports with little errors. He/she can be able to work better in a diverse community. But college educate, to me does not mean that a person without it can not do the same things.
I will say yes to college degree being mandatory for all entry level officers’ positions. Because I person straight out of high school should not become an officers in my opinion. They have not live life at all to really begin to mix with society I that way.
I believe that I college degree will help with my career and in life. It help will help me become more marketable to jobs and make me well rounded person. It will help me work with others and understand others more. Most importantly it will make my mother proud!
{2} I feel that having a college degree in my opinion would not help the officer on the street with decision making. Decision making comes from your own personal judgement and what you have learned (on the job training) not from a college degree.
ReplyDelete(3) I don't think a college degree should be mandatory for entry level officer positions in all police departments. I don't see the purpose, right now the only qualifications that you need is to have completed high school or have a GED, and its working out fine so whats the purpose.
ReplyDelete(4)The only thing the college degree is going to give me is a 5 percent raise(more money)not help me on the job.
ReplyDeleteI do believe an officer who has been on the force for 15 years can be qualified for a promotion that of an management position. This officer has time and his experiences on the force that can also, prepare other officers.
ReplyDelete2. In most cases, it is really up to the person/officer. The officers up-bringing morals, ethics and his/her critical reasoning. This is learned or taught. Education, or having a college degree is very important, in decision making. An educated officer can be a asset to any police department or between .
ReplyDeleteWho is SCPTJ33?
ReplyDeleteAretha:
ReplyDeleteI a very surprised that you feel that it is not worth more than a 5% raise...
I believe the government or police force said a lot of things that seems nice but at the end their not backing it up with action.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that the police force was ever intended for people with educational background.
First we have to understand why some jobs trained, instead of educate their employees. When training someone you want them to go out there and do what their told to do and followed a lot of rules, regulation and do it that way or else… education in the other hand you have to used your senses to make decision, every situation is different, critical thinking and good judgment is the best key.
I personally always compare the police as the army. They both dealing with people’s lives, they both prefer to train people not educate them, the question is why? I think the answer is simple those two department don’t want their officers to start making their own decision, their roles is to follow orders not to think, even in training that’s what they teach them.
I don’t believe a police officer should be qualified for a promotion to senior management position with no formal education beyond the academy. I believe that officer would not have something different to bring to the agency and also those are the things we should try to prevent in our society. When kids saw these things they look up to them usually by saying “you don’t need a college degree to make it in life” usually they used those examples.
ReplyDeleteEducations have a propensity to make people see things in a more rational way and when it comes to follow the law it is written and it shall be done, no other factors or things are taking into considerations. I don’t think that’s good, after all every situation is different so other things should be taking into consideration; that’s how an educated person would see it. In the other hand the educated persons who creates the laws also known that a very small amount of people would be able to make those judgment so they have kind line for the police, even at the judge levels they still have kind line. They also know that educated people have big ego so they try to do everything possible to prevent certain things, as times goes on these things need to be reviewed, but no one have time to deal with them now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people in the police departments should have a college degree because every police officer has the potential to harm the citizens, to be corrupt, turn bad themselves; education has the potential to make these things less likely. I think police officer should at least have some kind of college degree to proved that they have critical thinking skills, I’m not saying that college degree makes you smatter than someone who don’t have one, at least that’s what society is saying but for us who are in college we do know that’s not always the case.
ReplyDeleteI believe my college degree will help me with my career, let me start by saying I have no intention of becoming a police officer at least not for long, for what I want to do I believe a master is the minimum requirement, and that is a college professor. I want to spend my life looking for facts doing research, not just what someone else says.
ReplyDeleteScptj33, I agree and disagree with you, I do believe that the office has a lot of experience, but can the officer bring anything new to the department. It sound like to be he’s going to do the same thing that everyone else that’s been working on the department is doing. Those position were designed for people with multi skills; like how to deal with employees, how to manage them. This officer only have 15 years of following orders nothing don’t anything in any ways to approved his knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Aretha, yes for what you going to do with the degree it probably will only gives you 5% pay increased, but the degree is a lot more than that. I don’t know about you, but going to school changed me a so many ways. I’m saying that probably because have learn from a lot of different majors before I choose criminal justice. I think your degree is more than just that, you probably don’t realized it now but you will along the way.
ReplyDeleteYasnay.
ReplyDelete1. 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?
In my personal opinion, I believe that Yes, an officer can have the opportunity after being 15 yrs in the force and having an outstanding record serving and protecting our community, to be promoted to a senior management position. S/He might not have the education beyond the training but has the experience that at times it’s more important than what’s written in a book. Education is very important, is a right that all human beings have, but not always people that have a high level of education have a good judgment, I mean, if they’re well educated and as a consequence to that should have good judgment then why do we have so many problems in our society? I think training and education should go hand to hand… But, I also, know that sometimes experience speaks louder than books. Experience also helps you have good Judgement...
Yasnay
ReplyDelete2. How does having a college degree help the officer on the street with decision making?
Well, because having a college degree will enrich his/her judgment and having a higher level of knowledge can help the officer make better critical thinking decision. Can help the officer communicate in a more efficient way with people in the street… It doesn’t mean that an officer that doesn’t have a degree can’t …
3. Should the college degree be mandatory for entry level officer positions in ALL police departments?
No, I don’t think it should be mandatory, If they have it is a plus. But again, I don’t think a college degree will make you a better officer. First of all, you need to have the heart to serve, protect and make a difference in our community and that can’t be taught or given at a college.
4. Will your college degree help you with your career? If yes, How?
Yes, Because it will give me the knowledge in the field that I want to pursuit and it’s a minimum requirement to enter the agency.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYasnay
ReplyDeleteFanel,
I agree and disagree with you… I think that a degree can definitely change your life. But there are things in life that a degree cannot give you. Like morals, heart, passion… It doesn’t mean that because an officer doesn’t have a degree, he\she don’t have the judgment to know what’s right from wrong. The experience can give the officer a lot of what he needs to make a change better than a degree. Example, an officer that’s been in the PD for 15 yrs shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be promoted and another officer with a degree but only 4 yrs of experience should? What makes him better? A degree?
Yasnay
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Bernethia, aretha, Shantell answer for the 1st question.
I agree, with Yesnay. Education can not top experience at times. I degree helps you stand out, but sometimes people are book smart not street smart. Remember that college I not for everyone.
ReplyDeleteALL:
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
Yasnay.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you Dr. Kalam.
They go hand to hand; I think is what will make an officer an asset to any DP. But, the individual also have to have personal values that are only within him/her self that will definitely make a big difference.
Yasnay,
ReplyDeleteAlso,I think that experience is very important.
Fanel Remelus. Getting a college degree like i said would only get me an increase in pay. At my job in order to get a promition you need to take an exam with the material that was given to you not have a degree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bernethia when she says that no college degree should be mandatory because we all have civil rights as Americans and its our choice to go to school or not.
ReplyDeleteYasnay,
ReplyDeleteAretha, not only at your job... In alot of agencies is also like that...
just testing...
ReplyDeleteDr Kalam, what i was saying was that a college degree will not help me with my career it will only give me a 5 percent raise
ReplyDeletejust testing
ReplyDelete