ABSTRACT

The previous chapters referred, often indirectly, to the mechanisms through which police misconduct has been revealed. The current chapter looks more closely at these diverse sources and how they can be utilized most effectively for diagnostic and preventive purposes. It is important to note, though, that the title of this chapter is somewhat misleading. There are no true measures of police misconduct or integrity. In other words, there is no way to be 100% sure that all types of misconduct have been identified and their extent and intensity quantified. This is because misconduct is, obviously, generally secretive. Potential witnesses might be intimidated into silence, they might themselves be involved in corruption, and other potential witnesses, such as complainants, may be mistaken or their testimony cannot be corroborated. Police also work in a way that makes it impossible to conduct continuous surveillance of all their activities. Measuring misconduct-or “the measurement of police integrity,” to put a positive spin on the topic (Klockars, Kutnjak Ivkovich, Harver & Haberfeld, 2000)—is therefore a very imprecise science. What we are really talking about is developing “indicators” of corruption-that is, pointers, vague signs, and imprecise markers-that might be evidence of real corruption or simply “white noise” that cannot be analyzed as useful information. The evidentiary quality of these indicators, especially in relation to the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” is highly variable.