Termination of police officers who lie as a matter of public policy

TERMINATION OF POLICE 1

Termination of police officers who lie as a matter of public policy

Name:

Institution name

Serpas & Hagar, (2010) argues that in the past years there has been a lot of pressure in answering the question about what to do with a law enforcing officer who is untruthful. This is because untruthfulness of a law enforcement officer has damaging effect on efficiency and effectiveness of policing service. Furthermore, by use of untruthful words in order to avoid disciplinary actions lowers the efficiency and effectiveness of police.

DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, (2001) argue that since criminal behaviour is always deceptive in nature, deception is always required to solve it. Police deception is believed to take place in three phase’s namely investigative, interrogative and testimonial deceptive. Investigative is the first phase where it involves lying to a witness or a victim in order to obtain information. According to DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, (2001), still, this deception is acceptable since there is no law or if there are there they are few that prohibit the use of deception in obtaining information. At interrogative stage, when the amount of deception increase it becomes less acceptable. Initially before introduction of Miranda and Mapp interrogation used beatings and threats, with emergence of individual human rights Miranda and Mapp require officer to use psychological tactics such good cop bad cop in obtain information from criminal or victims. It is however noted that even if interrogative deception is less acceptable some officers still find ways in which they get information by use of deceptive means. The last stage of detection that is testimonial stage deception is always least acceptable. It is believed that when illegal deception is used during interrogation stage the end result is lying in court as a way of achieving the goal of conviction.

Serpas & Hagar, (2010)agues that untruthful officers must face a serious disciplinary action that is, termination because being truthful is not a matter of witness credibility in a court of law, it is the basic nature of law enforcement service and goes deeper into the ability of a police officer to provide service that are appropriate to the community. Termination is not done without just cause. termination of untruthful police is seen as a an action taken on behalf of the community since betrayal of an oath is not only a violation of policy but a violation against the community as well.

Schmidt, (2008) believes that untruthfulness on matters that are unrelated to official duties is an excessive punishment; example is Kreiser v. Police Bd. of Chicago. However on matter that are related to official duties then termination should be upheld for example case of Brogan v. U.S. Federal court in Chicago also noted that if an officer lies about an issue related to public duties, the court is justified to uphold dismissal. There are arguments that lying is nature of law enforcement, this is because officers sometimes lie while undercover or when under investigations. However there is need for distinction between sanctioned lying and prohibited lying. This means that police who lie intentionally in an official document e.g. police reports are to be terminated on the basis of public policy (Spector, 2007).

Normally there are good law enforcement offices that enter the field of law enforcement with good values that guide them. This changes as time goes by because of the peer pressure they get from other officers who make them forget those values. These are some of the reason why it is important to be careful when placing officer in field for training by officers with bad morals and values (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2001). But once an officer lie intentionally credibility of the whole law enforcement agency is at stake. It would be a wise decision to look at the broader perspective and terminate the officer no matter how good they are because one person is not worth the whole agency.

Credibility is important in police service, this means that it must always be uphold at all cost. Serpas & Hagar, (2010) argues that in all areas that pertains law enforcement, credibility is paramount as it ensures that law enforcement to carry out its mission. Effectiveness of law enforcement agency as well as its member is dependent upon respect and confidence from the community. The truth police earns from the community allows them to operate efficiently. It is therefore important that all police behave in a manner that their integrity, reliability and honesty are unquestionable. This includes behaviour in function such as interaction with citizens, testifying in court of law and provision of information in any legal and official setting. After being fired on the basis questionable integrity, the personnel cannot be employed as a police or a law enforcing officer anywhere in the state (Spector, 2007). This therefore means that the family of the affected officer income source of income will be no more.

In order to control this issue of integrity, there is need for ethics. DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, (2001) argue that over the past two decades there has been significant growth in criminal justice ethics training and education. The result of such a growth is numerous ethics training within the agencies and incorporations of required ethics courses in many of the academic programs. Further argues point out that law enforcement has received most attention in regards to ethics in the criminal justice. This is believed to be attributed by how the disciplined developed.

DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, (2001) believe that the relevance of code of ethics it must be useful, therefore they must be developed by those officers who ensures their acceptance. In addition the code of ethics must not be based or focus on rules as such. Behaviours which must be conformed to should be put as rules; other should be categorized as principles and ideals that are god to follow. This means that rules uses must, principles uses should and ideals uses ought.

It is important therefore that chiefs, sheriff, warden, state police commissioner and supervisors establish clear policies which will promote effective and efficient operations as well as provide counsel and advice to their junior police officers on policies and practice in order for their employees to demonstrate integrity expected of them form the public. In attempt to provide counselling services the chiefs should share with their juniors on the importance of being honest as it is describe in oaths of public service. Members of the public expect nothing less than effectiveness, efficiency and honesty from officers. DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, (2001) argue that criminal justice administrators are now realizing that knowledge on ethics is a basic skills. Should a police officer lie in matter that are related to his or her duties then, one disciplinary action need to be taken, that is termination. When the issue is light there are other disciplinary actions that are used in case an offence committed is not related to official duty. They are education based disciplined and discipline matrix (Stephens, 2011) but when the magnitude of lying compromises the credibility of the overall law enforcing authority termination is the only option.

References

DuPont-Morales, M., Hooper, M., & Schmidt, J. (2001). Handbook of criminal justice administration (1st ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Schmidt, W. (2008). Disciplinary Consequences of Peace Officer Untruthfulness Part Two - Employee Dishonesty (1st ed.). Chicago: AELE Law Enforcement Legal Center. Retrieved from http://www.aele.org/law/2008FPOCT/2008-10MLJ201.pdf

Serpas, R., & Hagar, M. (2010). The Untruthful Employee: Is Termination the Only Response?. Policechiefmagazine.org. Retrieved 12 July 2014, from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2163&issue_id=82010

Spector, E. (2007). Chief's Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy?. Policechiefmagazine.org. Retrieved 12 July 2014, from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1458&issue_id=42008

Stephens, D. (2011). New Perspectives in Policing: Police Discipline: A Case for Change (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminal-justice/NPIP-PoliceDisciplineACaseforChange-06-11.pdf