Police Officers: Lawbreakers Or Protectors Of Peace?

Law enforcement officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. A study by Francis Boateng and Daniel Pryce, published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, found that multiple factors influence whether an officer is charged and how harsh their sentence is. These factors include the officer's rank, whether they were on or off duty, and the nature of the case. For example, cases involving children, women, or drugs often result in harsher punishments. The study also highlights the role of qualified immunity and police unions in reducing the severity of punishment for errant officers. Despite these complexities, the internal mechanism of who polices the police? can work, as evidenced by the 72% conviction rate in cases where an officer was charged.

Police officers are more likely to get away with crimes than civilians

Police officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. A study by Francis Boateng and Daniel Pryce, published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, found that police officers often face less severe punishment than civilians once convicted. The study also found that on-duty officers are less likely to be severely punished than those who are off duty. This could be due to the legal protection of qualified immunity, which shields officers from being charged or sued for actions necessary to their job, such as handcuffing or restraining someone. Without this immunity, every arrest could be considered kidnapping. However, officers have also used the law against allegations of assault, misconduct, and murder. Police unions, which provide officers with lawyers when accused of crimes, are another factor that influences the likelihood of officers getting away with crimes.

The study by Boateng and Pryce examined the complex factors that influence decision-making in criminal cases against police officers. They found that multiple factors, such as the presence of children, women, or drugs in a case, can bring harsher punishments. Additionally, the higher the person's rank, the more likely they are to be given a harsher punishment. The study also showed that the criminal justice system is responsive to cases of police officer misconduct, with a 72% conviction rate when an officer was charged. This indicates that while police officers may be more likely to get away with crimes, there are still mechanisms in place to hold them accountable.

While police officers have certain powers and protections that civilians do not, they are still subject to the law and can be prosecuted for crimes. The Department of Justice in the United States, for example, vigorously investigates and prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. These cases can include excessive force, sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or risks of harm to individuals in custody. To prove a violation, the government must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer deprived an individual of their Constitutional rights, acted willfully, and was acting under the color of law.

In summary, police officers are more likely to get away with crimes than civilians due to factors such as qualified immunity and police unions. However, there are still mechanisms in place to hold officers accountable, and they can be prosecuted for violations. It is important to note that police officers have a duty to serve and protect the community and uphold the law, and the majority of them carry out this duty with integrity and dedication.

Factors influencing punishment for police officers who break the law

Police officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. When convicted, they often face less severe punishment than civilians. However, multiple factors influence whether an officer is charged and how harsh the sentence is.

On-duty officers are less likely to be severely punished than those off-duty. Cases involving children, women, or drugs often result in harsher punishments. The higher the officer's rank, the more likely they are to be given a harsher punishment.

Qualified immunity is a legal protection that shields officers from being charged or sued for actions necessary to their job, such as handcuffing or restraining someone. Without this immunity, every arrest could be considered kidnapping. However, officers have also used the law against allegations of assault, misconduct, and murder.

Police unions are another barrier to the prosecution of officers. They provide a lawyer for officers accused of crimes. While police unions will support an officer, even bad ones, when a prosecutor decides to prosecute a case against an officer, it is likely to go through the entire legal process.

The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers, including excessive force, sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, as long as they are acting in their official capacity.

Qualified immunity and police unions as barriers to prosecution

While there are no statistics available on the number of police officers who break the law, law enforcement officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. When convicted, they often face less severe punishment than civilians. This is due to a combination of factors, including qualified immunity and police unions, which act as barriers to prosecution.

Qualified immunity is a legal protection that shields officers from being charged or sued for actions necessary to their job, such as handcuffing or restraining someone. Without this immunity, every arrest could be considered kidnapping. However, officers have also used the law to defend against allegations of assault, misconduct, and murder. This immunity clause has been criticised for encouraging officers to engage in misconduct and for placing them above the law. In the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, it creates "an absolute shield" for officers accused of using excessive force.

To hold an officer accountable for misconduct or excessive force, the victim must prove two things: that the officer's conduct was unlawful, and that the officer should have known they were violating a "clearly established" law. This is challenging because courts often require a nearly identical previous case as precedent. As a result, even when officers act illegally and maliciously, they often go unpunished.

Police unions also present an obstacle to prosecution. They provide a lawyer for officers accused of crimes and quickly fall behind and support their members, even those who have committed wrongdoing. While police unions can exploit certain aspects of the system to benefit their members, many local law enforcement agencies are effective at policing their officers. However, departments that fail to do so can erode trust in their community and the profession as a whole.

When are police officers permitted to break the law?

While police officers are not above the law and are not given a "free pass" to break the law, there are certain circumstances in which police officers are permitted to perform acts that would usually be considered illegal.

Firstly, in the interest of public safety, police officers may perform acts that would otherwise be illegal. For example, if a road needs to be closed, police officers may direct traffic the "wrong" way down a one-way street or go through a red light. Many states have a general exception to laws, especially traffic laws, that allow police officers to override them.

Secondly, when working undercover, police officers may commit acts that would usually be considered illegal, such as buying and selling drugs. This is done as part of an investigation and is not used directly to entrap suspects.

Thirdly, police officers have an effective form of immunity from being convicted of crimes, particularly when it comes to speed limits. This immunity can lead to police officers being permitted to violate certain laws in practice.

It is important to note that while police officers may be permitted to break certain laws in specific circumstances, they are still subject to consequences if they engage in misconduct, wrongdoing, or illegal acts. Courts have held police officers accountable and they can face punishment such as prison, probation, and fines when convicted of criminal acts.

Additionally, police officers are expected to respect and protect human dignity, maintain and uphold human rights, and only use force when strictly necessary. They are also bound by a code of conduct that prohibits acts of corruption, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Law enforcement misconduct and the Department of Justice's role

While the vast majority of law enforcement officers in the United States perform their jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law, there are incidents of law enforcement misconduct. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that address police misconduct, which include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of state, county, and local officers, as well as federal law enforcement officers, and protect all persons in the United States, regardless of citizenship.

The DOJ's investigations into law enforcement misconduct most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. The DOJ's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, as long as they are acting or claiming to act in their official capacity. In addition to Constitutional violations, the DOJ prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice, such as attempting to prevent a victim or witness from reporting misconduct, lying during an investigation, writing a false report, or fabricating evidence.

To prove a violation of the federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers (18 U.S.C. § 242), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, that the defendant acted willfully, and that the defendant was acting under the color of law. A violation of this statute is considered a felony if certain conditions are met, such as the use of a dangerous weapon or if the victim suffered bodily injury.

The DOJ's process for addressing law enforcement misconduct involves investigations and, where evidence permits, prosecutions. In criminal cases, the DOJ brings a case against the accused person, while in civil cases, the DOJ brings the case against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency. Criminal cases require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while civil cases have a lower standard of proof, needing only a "preponderance of the evidence." The remedies available in criminal cases include imprisonment or other sanctions, while civil cases seek to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and may include individual relief for the victim(s).

In addition to the DOJ's role, civil lawsuits against individual police officers may also help deter police misconduct. These lawsuits often involve allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, or wrongful death. However, state and federal law limit the effectiveness of this remedy, and police officers may be protected by sovereign immunity. Overall, the DOJ's enforcement authority plays a crucial role in holding law enforcement agencies accountable and ensuring that victims of police misconduct have access to justice.

Frequently asked questions