Respond to these with substantive feedback and try not to be too critical. just helpful.
provide a brief summary of the incident.
An innocent man, Tony Wright, was imprisoned for 23 years due to Philadelphia Police corruption. Two homicide police officers came to his residence to ask for his help for a murder that occurred in the area. Wright did not know that he was a suspect at the time; the police officers did not read his Miranda Rights to him before they took him to the police station for the custodial interrogation (Solotaroff, 2015). There, Wright signed a full confession to the Louise Talley’s rape and murder case. However, none of the confession was true. According to Wright’s testimony, Detective threat him of bodily harm during the interrogation in order to have him sign the confession (Massie, & Cates, 2014). Police even fabricated the evidence to arrest Wright (Solotaroff, 2015). As a result of police corruption, it took over 20 years to prove Wright’s innocence.
In your opinion, why did this incident occur.
I chose 2) Organizational explanations (e.g., the culture within a department, an ineffective disciplinary system, etc.)
In my opinion, Wright’s case has very little to do with personality characteristics of the officer. It has more to do with department environment and pressure from the corrupted superiors, especially Chief of Police, Frank Rizzo.
He was known as a racist police officer whose motto was “Get the confession by any and all means, and I’ll back you if you go over the line” (Solotaroff, 2015). His racist attitude toward Blacks negatively influenced the police force in Philadelphia. As his motto suggests, violence and threats are acceptable to get the suspect to sign the confessions. What kind of police leader is that?!
The hierarchical structure of police makes it hard to disobey the superior. Then over time, just like the proverb, “one bad apple spoils the barrel” happens. I believe Wright’s case was caused from the outrageous Police Chief’s influence that made the police department to accept dishonest conducts and violence in order to arrest targeted people.
Additionally, provide suggestions regarding steps that can be taken to reduce the possibility that this type of misconduct will occur in the future.
Supervisors’ inability to discipline fellow police officers’ corrupt behaviors and department atmosphere that allows officers’ misconducts are known to promote the police corruption (Lee et al., 2013, p.398). This is exactly what happened to Philadelphia Police. To avoid this type of police misconduct, police supervisors must apply punitive discipline to officers who have done misconducts.
At the same time, supervisors need to hold the utmost importance in integrity. Otherwise, there is no point in supervising the subordinates; corrupted officers cannot nurture police officers with high integrity. In addition, improvement in recruitment and training is crucial for decreasing the misconduct of police officers (Bayley, & Perito, 2011, p.1). It is essential for Police Department to hire individuals with high integrity and provide training throughout their career in the police force. Training can eliminate the chance of misconduct as long as one starts the career with good intention.
Bayley, D., & Perito, R. (2011, November 1). Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR 294.pdf
Lee, H., Lim, H., Moore, D. D., & Kim, J. (2013). How police organizational structure correlates with frontline officers’ attitudes toward corruption: A multilevel model. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 14(5), 386-401. doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.635483
Massie, A., & Cates, P. (2014, September 22). Court overturns the conviction of a Philadelphia man who has served 23 years for a murder DNA testing reveals was committed by another. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/press-releases/court-overturns-the-conviction-of-a-philadelphia-man-who-has-served-23-years-for-a-murder-dna-testing-reveals-was-committed-by-another
Solotaroff, P. (2015). Why is this man still in jail?. Rolling Stone, (1230), 42.
In my opinion an officer accepting a free cup of coffee or a donut is ok unless there is a zero policy at the department. There are some stipulations though. If a police officer goes to different places and and they are always offering free or discounted merchandise or food that's okay. When this becomes a problem is if the officer feels some type of entitlement that he or she is entitled to free or discounted items because of his or her position then that is when it becomes a problem.
Then there is also the issue of officers excepting small things could also lead to them later accepting bigger items such as bribes in turn for special favors. Small favors can lead to bigger favors such as extra protection from the police in exchange for bribes. Then that's when corruption kicks in."Gratuities are not likely to be 'the foot in the door' for corruption, but they do raise the ethical issue of democratic policing, which entitles all citizens to equal access to police services"(ncjrs.gov, 1985)... So yes some people are just grateful to have police out in harms way serving and protecting them so they offer things to show their appreciation with no hidden agenda behind it, Officers just have to to use their own judgment to know when it is OK to accept items and when its too much. Its is just safer not to accept any gratuities at all.
|Due By (Pacific Time)
||09/12/2015 12:00 am