Police Deviance; Examples, Reasons, and Possible Cures

In the early seventies a unit was formed in Los Angeles under the LAPD, this unit was named C.R.A.S.H. or Community Resources against Street Hoodlums. The sole purpose of this unit was to reduce gang crime. Over the next twenty years, this unit had major success and between 1992 and 1999, a large reduction in gang crime, gang related deaths was seen as a result. Unfortunately, the results were tainted with allegations of impropriety and police deviance from the ethical standards of law enforcement.

In 1998 several officers in the Rampart division of LAPD, C.R.A.S.H. units were brought up on charges. These charges ranged from cover-ups, too assault in connection with a gang member questioned by one of the men. For the purpose of this paper, I will not use names, nor delve into the actual case. The idea is to show what police deviance is and why (perhaps) it occurs. Eventually two of the three officers were sentenced and over the next 12 years, the C.R.A.S.H. units were dismantled. It was in 2000 that alternate programs were brought into active service completely replacing C.R.A.S.H. Around the same time frame this was occurring in Los Angeles, New York was also experiencing similar issues with police deviance, and allegations of impropriety. New York was having these problems as a direct result of similar programs within the law enforcement community. Several officers had been accused of committing sodomy against a Haitian immigrant. "About 200 protesters marched on the Justice Department yesterday demanding that the federal government do more to track and punish police brutality, before joining a hearing where victims of alleged police misconduct told their stories to members of the Congressional Black Caucus." (Fletcher, 1997) Something obviously had to be done, however was it already too late for the public view of these police departments?

Both cities initiated full proceedings that included civilian oversight committees as well as panels of civil and criminal defense attorneys. The idea was to attempt to uphold the ideal of a positive police department image in both cities. The attempt was made to correct the previous lack of oversight by presenting a deluge of immediate oversight. Over the course of time, the panels found that a severe "lack" of direct oversight (civilian and law enforcement) existed on both departments. Measures were enacted and changes implemented that helped to ensure better oversight so that this would not happen to the degree it had in the future.

In addressing the police deviance issues we must remember how and why the "units" involved were implemented to do what they do. The high number of arrests in the Los Angeles department, Rampart section with duplicate language, and the use of informants in direct violation of normal LAPD procedure were just a few ways the officers "skirted" the ethical rules that had been laid out for them to operate under. In New York, you had officers doing the same basic deeds and falling back as well into the "wall of blue" for protection. Obviously to keep public support of law enforcement nation wide one must address this negative behavior and approach it with solutions. The question begs to be asked, why do the officers do this?

According to Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert, (1994)

"Citizen Involvement (victimization) by acts of police deviance can be a product of internally motivated deviance. One motivating factor is police resistance to the judicial system." Other factors include the inability to do some tasks while working under legal constraints that criminals do not abide by, and yet another can be seen because of the amount of time officers spend in these "special" units. It has been documented that over time in stressful situations one begins to associate themselves with the opposing side, either on friendly terms or through direct action against. The daily grind of these types of units would eventually drag even the best officers down to a level they did not originally intend to go. Obviously, the actions of these officers can be partially attributed to stress of the job, however how much of their actions should be personally accounted for, and how much should the department take the blame? Over time, these officers did reduce crime substantially in the sections of the cities that they had jurisdiction over. While their actions may have been questioned, their motives remained the same and with very few exceptions, good was done. Obviously, this begs the question, why was it allowed to continue. Some have said that the end did indeed justify the means in these situations, that hundreds of deaths were prevented at the cost of a small group of people's trampled civil rights. We saw that the death toll fell astronomically because of these units crackdowns. So why is there a problem with a few cracked skulls? Ethically we know this is the wrong approach, morally it depends upon the person. It is wrong because it broke the law of the land, no matter how positive the result is a negative road is unacceptable in a society with laws. So what do we do to prevent this in the future?

Instead of building the units internally use two or more agencies, combine efforts. By simply doing this, the ability to skirt laws is reduced. Rotate the men (and women) involved in these units out to lower stress job duties regularly. Prevent the stress buildup that eventually will psychologically allow a person to go against what they know to be right. Allow better and more continuous oversight from the civilian sector. Hold informal meetings that involve the public and the officers, the mingling could allow for better feelings on both sides of the fence. Most importantly, we must stop thinking of the law enforcement community as our enemy, and the law enforcement community needs to begin pushing for a better, cleaner image; they need to stop protecting bad cops. The idea of quick fixes is inherent in our modern American society, with this type of issue, no quick fix is possible, even though the public may not have patience, and time is the most important item to be allowed to help fix this problem.

Fletcher, Michael (1997, September 13). Police brutality protesters march on Justice Dept.: The Washington Post. p. A06.

Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, Richard and Alpert, Geoffrey. (1994). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.