Monday, October 09, 2006

Enforcing the law, then breaking it

I've been focusing lately on police corruption along the border, but law enforcement corruption crops up everywhere in the state, and it would be wrong to imply that the border's problems differ significantly, say, from those in Dallas, East Texas, or out in the Panhandle.

The Dallas News ran a lengthy feature Sunday on police officers who commit crimes, focusing in particular on the experiences of officers who go to prison ("Enforcing the law, then breaking it," Oct. 8). The writer Diane Jennings did a nice job - go read the whole thing.

While only a small percentage of officers commit crimes on the job, when they do the offenses usually go unpunished. The infamous "blue wall of silence," combined with prosecutorial reluctance to aggressively go after police, protects many officers in situations where average citizens would do hard time. Those who actually wind up going to prison by far are the anomalies - many more officers are fired or merely disciplined for acts that would be criminal offenses if committed by anyone else.

Partly that's because everyone knows what a grim fate awaits the police officer who winds up incarcerated. "There are three types of inmates hated in prison," a former officer who served time told Jennings, "The child molester, the snitch and the cop." That's why you frequently see probation awarded even in the most egregious cases - judges and juries believe officers will be persecuted and punished in prison in excess of what other defendants might face. Reports Jennings:

At least 110 licensed Texas officers, from jailers to police chiefs, have spent time behind bars – for offenses ranging from theft to sexual assault, on and off the job, according to a Dallas Morning News analysis of law enforcement records of the last four years.

More than twice that many have been convicted, received deferred adjudication or been placed on probation for felony charges.

The patterns of corruption everywhere differ little from those on the border. Officers involved in enforcing the drug war are most susceptible to the lure of criminal life:
Those most likely to be corrupted are vice and narcotic officers, says Dr. [Tom] Mijares [of Texas State University]. "Let's face it, you've got, in many cases, millions of dollars being exchanged, and the officer gets this very cynical feeling of 'all this money is being exchanged, and I'm putting my life at risk. ...Why should I not take advantage of my position?' "
Said one former officer, "I had a strong sense of right and wrong," but "the lines become gray when you're fighting a war. That's what it is – drug war." Jennings relates the story of the former head of the Beaumont police union who stole cocaine from the evidence locker and sold it for hundreds of thousands of dollars - he called his behavior an "aberration"! Indeed!

Jennings also focused on how police supervisors improperly protect bad cops. It appeared from her anecdotes to be an almost instinctive reaction:
The first time James McLaughlin – a former police chief who now serves as executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association – heard a complaint had been filed against one of his officers, charging inappropriate sexual behavior with a young girl, he was so angry he confronted the girl.

False accusations are common in police work. And officers initially react with disbelief when one of their own is accused.

"I'll see you in TYC [Texas Youth Commission]," he remembers telling her. "I ... wanted to make sure she understood the seriousness of her charges and the consequences of making false charges."

To Mr. McLaughlin's dismay, the officer confessed.

McLaughlin later apologized to the victim, but that's not the point - his reaction was the norm, not an "aberration." If his officer had never confessed, McLaughlin would have probably pursued his threat to have his victim incarcerated, and many other police administrators reflexively would do and have done the same thing when citizens complain against officers.

It's that culture of "blame the victim," "circling the wagons," the "blue wall of silence" that must be confronted to really combat police corruption. Kudos to Jennings and the News for a significant contribution to the discussion of this taboo subject.

5 comments:

Roy said...

The situation is far worse than you think.

When one of several police officers commits a serious crime, say a violent felony, his fellow officers will stand guard to protect him from interference from civilian bystanders and will scare off any victims.

Why? Simple: the glue that binds the police together is mutual blackmail. Nobody passes probation until they are 'blooded' by committing a crime that could land them in prison, while observed by brother officers. They will be retested again and again over the years. They have to prove repeatedly their allegiance to the police and not to the public.

Anonymous said...

I think that Roy has been watching too many made-for-TV movies. There are many officers who go to jail for their crimes. The reason so many get lighter sentences is because the judges often take into account the years of public service prior to the officer committing the crime. The same is done for military vets.

Anonymous said...

The trend today is join a federal drug task force because the federal agencies have no control over those they deputize.

The federal agencies add people, deputize them and these deputized state and local officers are instantly federalized.

Thay may not sound like such a bad idea because the federal agencies sell it as "cooperation" but in actuality the federal agencies and the others have more differences than similarities.

They pool resources and selectivel weed out policies and procedures that slow them down. They might use the federal overhear authority, money from a state grant to make a buy, and let the locals use their buddy at the DA's office to get a search warrant. You think they're operating under the guidelines of the federal agency but they're not. They're work product is reported in the federal agencies report and the coners they cut and the policies and procedures they violated (often times outright lying) are well hidden.

The one report is a summary, a creative writing assignment, that the Agency supervisor's praise and the Agency's inspection teams overlook.

One of these days, the activities of these federal drug task forces will be scrutinized like the FBI was scrutizined in Boston. When they are, people will be horrified that prosecutors and superivsors have been turning their heads all along.

Anonymous said...

another reason police go unprosecuted -
DA's don't want to prosecute officers because it alienates the police department, who retaliate by slacking enough to raise crime rates. And an increase in crime decreases the DA's chances for re-election.

800 pound gorilla said...

Let's see: if you're enforcing drug laws that are deliberately written with no specific guidelines and no scientific standards and you need to justify this expense to taxpayers you have to lie. You have to hide the fact that there is no basis for criminalization with the dangerous drugs mythology. You constantly face the public and demonize arbitrarily banned drugs, inflate dangers, and costantly mislead to get legislation passed to get more money and power for your department.

If you once had a passion for justice it soon becomes overwhelmed with a desire to amass more power, influence and taxpayer dollars. And that's what happens to "honest" police. Imagine how easy it would be - knowing that the drug war is a scam enriching low life scum who including scum in three piece suits - to help your beleaguered family out [just in case you get killed trying to enforce laws against heavily armed criminals]. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.....