Policing Police Misconduct in a Democratic Society: The Judgments of Police Officers and White, Black, and Hispanic Citizens
University of California, Irvine School of Law; Department of Criminology, Law & Society
The Graduate Center, CUNY - Data Service
January 3, 2011
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-13
Almost since their inception, there have been calls for the reform of civilian review boards. Many of these reforms call for greater independence of review boards, including the authority to carry out discipline of police officers for corroborated cases of police misconduct. To date, however, there has been little empirical research on what constitutes reasonable discipline for an alleged case of police misconduct. We seek to fill in this gap in our understanding by comparing citizens’ and officers’ judgments of appropriate discipline for alleged misconduct. Using a factorial design, our findings show that there is a surprisingly strong level of consensus between citizens and officers about which evidence is most significant to weigh in reaching a judgment but that there is a lack of consensus between citizens and officers about the appropriate level of discipline. Not surprisingly, police officers’ judgments of fair punishment are significantly lower than their citizen counterparts. That said, citizens’ judgments are, these findings show, reasonable and fair in light of the alleged infraction. As steps are taken to reform civilian review procedures, the findings reported here provide an empirical foundation for developing disciplinary guidelines that takes account of a community’s understanding of what constitutes fair and reasoned discipline.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 49
Date posted: May 18, 2011 ; Last revised: June 4, 2012
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 1.188 seconds