Do police officers owe their primary loyalty to their respective Police Force, society, or their fellow officers? One of the most frequent and difficult ethical choices police officers confront is what to do when faced with the wrongdoing of anther officer. Informing on one’s peers has always been negatively perceived by a large contingent of any group; whether that group is doctors, lawyers, prisoners, students, police officers or politicians.
The code of silence as it relates to police work is present in all occupations and groups. This brings me to the question: “Why do we look away or do not come forward when others do or commit wrongdoing?” Is it because we don’t want to get involved, we don’t want to face the scorn of others, we feel it’s not our business or job to come forward when there are others who are supposed to look out for us and punish wrongdoings or perhaps we are afraid we will be blamed if the perpetrator is not correctly identified or we will tell the truth to avoid punishment ourselves?
Over the years, I have come to realize that police loyalty is an unwritten code of conduct long thought to permeate policing. This traditional loyalty is being diminished in Police Forces, with some police officers reporting improper behavior by their colleagues. I believed that loyalty in police work can be explained by the fact that police depend on each other, sometimes in life and death situations. As taught in Police Academies, loyalty to one’s fellow officer is of the esprit de corps of policing and an absolutely essential element for a healthy Police Force. Wren (1985) writes that loyalty is an internal moral position, as opposed to external reasoning, such as utilitarianism and deontological arguments. He points out that utilitarianism may define or condemn informing on other police officers.
Arguments by some persons for informing are that the harm from a scandal caused by the individual’s coming forward would be less than the good of the public’s believing that a Police Force was finally free from corruption and that individual corruption would halt. Arguments by some persons against informing are that some activities labeled corrupt actually may further the ends of justice and complete adherence to regulations would undermine detection and enforcement. Also, the loss of a skilled police officer, even though that officer may be moderately corrupt, is a loss to society.
I believe that the deontological arguments may either support informing or not. In my opinion, firstly, the arguments for informing include the fact that a police officer has a sworn duty to uphold the law. Also, one cannot remain silent in one situation unless one could approve of silence in all situations, and one most do one’s duty. Secondly, arguments against informing include the idea that it would be discretion and secrecy, obligations one assumes by joining a Police Force, and that it would be unjust to subject an otherwise good and heroic police officer to the punishment of exposure.
These arguments can be seen as external moral arguments, which contrast with the internal, such as loyalty. I believed that when one considers whether to come forward about the wrongdoing of others, external moral philosophies are rarely very well articulated. What often occurs is the prime motivator…personal integrity. Yet the individual often feels great anguish and self doubt over turning in friends and colleagues, and that is understandable since a person’s character is defined by his or her commitments, the more basic of which reveal to a person what his or her life is all about and give him or her a reason for going on. Thus, the issue of whistle blowing comes down to loyalty to persons or groups versus loyalty to one’s principles of integrity and honesty.
A former police officer once said, “Loyalty is a personal relationship not a judgment.” He also pointed out that loyalty always refers to a preference for one group over another. For example, loyalty always involves some exclusion: A is loyal to B rather than to C, with C thus being excluded. At times the revere can also be true.
The application to policing is obvious. If police feel isolated from the community, their loyalty is to other police officers and to the community at large. To address abuses of loyalty, police officers would not want to attack the loyalty itself because it is necessary for the heath of the organization. Rather, the police officers would want to extend the loyalty beyond the community. As we know, permeability rather than isolation promotes community loyalty, just as the movement toward professionalism promotes loyalty to principles of ethical policing as opposed to individuals in a Police Force.
Persons may believe that a Police Force can resolve the dilemma of the individual police officer who knows of wrongdoing by making the consequences more palatable. That is, by having a fair system of investigation and punishment by instituting helping programs for those with alcohol and other problems, and by using more moderate punishments than with dismissal or public exposure for other sorts of misbehavior.
This is consistent with ethics of care, which is concerned with needs and relationships. If the relationship can be saved and the need for honesty and change met, then that is the best alternative to the dilemma of wrongdoing. It is true that we all have a moral and civic duty, so we ought to be duty bound with the consideration of our loyalty to persons or groups versus our loyalty to one’s principles of integrity and honesty with respect to whistle blowing.
