Officers Who Break The Law: Impunity Or Punishment?

Police officers are sworn to uphold the law, but what happens when they break it? Law enforcement officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians, and they often face less severe punishment once convicted. However, a study by Francis Boateng and Daniel Pryce, published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, indicates that multiple factors influence whether an officer is charged and how harsh the sentence is. These factors include whether the officer was on or off duty, the presence of children, women or drugs in a case, and the officer's rank. While police officers may be shielded by qualified immunity and unions, the study found that the internal mechanism for policing the police can work, with a 72% conviction rate for officers who were charged.

Officers are more likely to get away with crimes than civilians

It is a well-known fact that police officers must obey the law, whether they are on or off duty. However, studies have shown that law enforcement officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. This is a cause for concern and raises the question: Who polices the police?

The answer to that question is complex. While police departments have internal mechanisms for dealing with officer misconduct, the ultimate responsibility for holding officers accountable lies with the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, the system has been criticized for not adequately addressing police misconduct and for allowing officers to be punished less severely than civilians for similar crimes.

One reason for this disparity in punishment may be the concept of qualified immunity. 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 a suspect. While qualified immunity is important to protect officers from frivolous lawsuits, it has also been criticized for encouraging misconduct and making it difficult to hold officers accountable for their actions.

In addition to qualified immunity, police unions have also been identified as a barrier to the prosecution of officers. Police unions often provide legal support and resources to officers facing criminal charges, which can influence the outcome of their cases.

Despite these concerns, it is important to recognize that the majority of law enforcement agencies do a good job of policing their officers. However, there are departments that fail to adequately address misconduct, which can erode trust in the community and the profession as a whole. To improve accountability and maintain public trust, it has been suggested that departments with a history of failures should be subject to increased supervision and oversight.

Overall, while officers are not above the law, there is a perception that they are more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. This perception has the potential to damage the legitimacy of police departments and the criminal justice system as a whole. To address this issue, reforms such as changes to qualified immunity and increased supervision of problematic departments have been proposed.

Officers often face less severe punishment than civilians

Police officers are sworn to uphold the law, but what happens when they are the ones breaking it? On-duty officers are less likely to be severely punished than those off duty, and they often face less severe punishment than civilians once convicted. This is due in large part to qualified immunity and unions. 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. While this protection is necessary, it has also been used as a shield against allegations of assault, misconduct, and murder.

The study, conducted by Francis Boateng and Daniel Pryce, examined more than 6,000 criminal cases to understand the factors influencing punishment for errant police officers. They found that cases involving children, women, or drugs often brought harsher punishments. Additionally, the higher the person's rank, the more likely they were to receive a harsher sentence. These findings highlight the complexity of decision-making in criminal cases against police officers.

The issue of police accountability is a critical one. The question of "Who polices the police?" led to this investigation, which revealed that police departments tend to self-police, but improvements can and should be made. The internal mechanism for accountability can work, as evidenced by the 72% conviction rate in cases where an officer was charged. However, departments with repeated failures in this regard should be subject to more supervision to maintain trust and legitimacy in the community they serve.

While police officers can and have been punished for their wrongdoing, misconduct, and illegal acts, the fact remains that they are statistically more likely to get away with crimes than civilians. This privilege granted to those tasked with enforcing the law can erode trust and create a vicious cycle where the community is less willing to cooperate and provide information, hindering effective policing.

On-duty officers are less likely to be severely punished

On-duty police officers are expected to obey the law, but what happens when they break it? A study by Francis Boateng of the University of Mississippi and Daniel Pryce of Old Dominion University examined over 6,000 criminal cases to understand the factors influencing the punishment of errant police officers. The study found that on-duty officers are less likely to face severe punishment compared to their off-duty counterparts.

This finding highlights a concerning double standard in the criminal justice system, where those tasked with upholding the law are held to a different standard than the citizens they serve. While all police officers should be accountable for their actions, the study suggests that being on duty at the time of a crime may afford some level of protection from the full force of the law.

So, why are on-duty officers treated more leniently? One factor could be the concept of qualified immunity, a legal protection that shields officers from being charged or sued for actions deemed necessary to their job, such as handcuffing or restraining individuals. While qualified immunity is intended to protect officers from frivolous lawsuits, critics argue that it can also encourage misconduct and provide a shield against prosecution for serious offences.

In addition to qualified immunity, police unions also play a role in reducing the severity of punishments for on-duty officers. These unions often provide legal support and representation for accused officers, which can influence the outcome of criminal cases. While police unions aim to protect their members, their involvement may inadvertently contribute to a perception of preferential treatment for law enforcement personnel.

Despite the findings of the study, it's important to recognise that the majority of criminal cases involving police officers do result in convictions. In 72% of cases where an officer was charged, a conviction was secured. This indicates that while on-duty officers may face reduced punishments, they are not entirely above the law. Nonetheless, the study highlights the need for improved accountability and transparency in policing to ensure equal justice for all, regardless of profession or status.

Officers of higher rank are more likely to be given a harsher punishment

Police officers are expected to obey the law at all times, regardless of whether they are on or off duty. When police officers break the law, they are subject to punishment just like any other citizen. The punishment for officers who break the law can include prison time, fines, and probation.

However, research suggests that law enforcement officers are statistically more likely to get away with crimes and receive less severe punishments compared to civilians. This is partly due to qualified immunity, a legal protection that shields officers from being charged or sued for actions necessary to their job, and the support of police unions, which provide legal assistance to officers facing accusations.

Despite this, it is important to note that multiple factors influence the punishment for errant officers. In a study examining over 6,000 criminal cases, researchers found that on-duty officers received less severe punishment than those off duty, and cases involving children, women, or drugs resulted in harsher punishments.

Interestingly, the study also revealed that officers of higher rank are more likely to be given a harsher punishment. This finding highlights the importance of understanding how different factors influence the punishment of officers within the criminal justice system. While the specific reasons behind this correlation are not explicitly stated in the study, it suggests that the punishment for officers who break the law is not solely based on their actions but also their position and influence within the law enforcement hierarchy.

The study's findings have significant implications for police legitimacy and community trust. By understanding how officers are punished by their agencies and the court system, citizens can feel more confident in the accountability and integrity of law enforcement.

Qualified immunity shields officers from being charged for necessary actions

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

Qualified immunity was created by the Supreme Court in 1967, ostensibly to protect government employees from frivolous lawsuits. However, in practice, it has become an "absolute shield" that prevents officers from being held accountable for their actions. This is because, in order to be sued, 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 second requirement is particularly challenging to meet, as courts often require a nearly identical previous case to be used as precedent.

Qualified immunity has been criticised for allowing police brutality to go unpunished and denying victims their constitutional rights. It has been described as "an absolute shield for law enforcement officers", allowing them to shoot first and think later.

In addition, qualified immunity disproportionately harms Black people, who are killed by police in the US at more than three times the rate of white people. Qualified immunity also shields officers who engage in racial profiling and other forms of discrimination.

Some have argued that qualified immunity is necessary to protect law enforcement officers from frivolous lawsuits and to allow them to do their jobs without fear of personal liability. However, critics argue that this is not the case, as officers are already protected from financial liability through indemnification.

The Supreme Court or Congress has the authority to end qualified immunity. There is significant public support for this, with nearly two-thirds of Americans favouring the elimination of qualified immunity.

Frequently asked questions