Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ivcovick 2
Ivcovick 2
Ivcovick 2
This article examines citizen and police evaluations ofthe seriousness ofpolice misconduct. It uses a questionnaire
with 10 scenarios describing police corruption and one scenario describing the use of excessive force. The
respondents-police officers and college students in the United States and Croatia-were asked to evaluate the
seriousness ofthese scenarios. The results suggest that, although absolute evaluations ofseriousness differ, their relative
rankings match closely across the two types of respondents (police officers and students) and across the two societies
(the U.S. and Croatia). These results expand on previous findings ofa shared hierarchy ofcrime seriousness by showing
that the perceptions of the seriousness of police misconduct are shared across cultures, thus transcending national
boundaries and suggesting a conunon understanding of crime seriousness.
The authors further concluded that "implicit judgments about the severity of
crime are imbedded in our social institutions" (Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, & Singer,
1985, p. v). Indeed, research studies have consistently indicated that, despite dif-
ferences in the absolute values between various groups--offenders and non-
offenders (Figlio, 1975; Velez-Diaz & Megargee, 1971), men and women (Rossi,
Simpson, & Miller, 1985), African-American respondents and Caucasian respon-
dents (Rossi et al., 1985; Wolfgang et al., 1985), the old and the young (Wolfgang
et al., 1985), and victims and non-victims (Wolfgang et al., 1985)-there is a high
degree ofsimilarity in terms ofrelative seriousness (Figlio, 1975; Rossi et al., 1985;
Velez-Diaz & Megargee, 1971; Wolfgang et al., 1985). Furthermore, beginning
25
26 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
with the seminal studies of, e.g., Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), Kelly and Winslow
(1970), and Hsu (1973), general studies of crime seriousness have indicated that
relative evaluations of seriousness are often shared by members of various
subcultures within the same society.
From the perspective of police misconduct, the existing research on crime
severity suffers from three shortcomings. First, it primarily or exclusively focuses
on ordinary street crimes and typically neglects to include cases of police
misconduct, a form of white-collar crime; that is to say, most studies do not treat
police officers as offenders. Second, it rarely describes police officers as victims.
Third, the respondents evaluating crime seriousness traditionally have been mostly
students; police officers have been respondents in very few studies.
As reports by independent commissions demonstrate, police officers are far from
being immune to abuses of their office (see, e.g., Christopher Commission, 1991;
Knapp Commission, 1972; Mollen Commission, 1994). In fact, policing as an
occupation abounds with opportunities for abuse. It involves a highly discretionary,
coercive activity that routinely takes place outside the range of supervisors' sight
and before witnesses who are often perceived as lacking credibility (e.g., prostitutes,
drug dealers) or who are not willing to talk because of the code of silence (e.g.,
police officers).
To investigate the extent to which evaluations of the seriousness of police
misconduct are country- or culture-dependent, this article uses data from two very
different countries: the United States, an established democracy with a common
law tradition and a highly decentralized police, and Croatia, a country in transition
with a civil law tradition and a highly centralized police. Members of the public
and police officers from these two countries were asked to evaluate the severity of
11 hypothetical cases of police misconduct.
Sociological studies (for a summary see, e.g., Adams, 1995; Kutnjak Ivkovich,
2003; Worden & Catlin, 2002), independent commission reports (e.g., Christopher
Commission, 1991; Knapp Commission, 1972; Mollen Commission, 1994), and
court cases (e.g., Harris, 1997; Kraska & Kappeler, 1999) clearly demonstrate that
police officers engage in various forms of police misconduct, ranging from
corruption, use of excessive force, and racial profiling to sexual misconduct and
perjury. Nevertheless, despite the abundance of evidence that police officers
engage in misconduct, in very few studies of crime seriousness have researchers
characterized offenders as police (Wolfgang et aI., 1985) or as public officials in
general (Rossi, Bose, & Berk, 1974; Wolfgang et aI., 1985). Even when they are
included, as in both the aforementioned studies, police officers and public officials
are described as engaging in the most conventional form ofpolice corruption-the
acceptance of a bribe.
International Criminal Justice Review 27
Wolfgang et aI. (1985) found that cases of corruption were evaluated as more
serious when the bribe amount was given in the scenario description. Moreover,
when no amount was given, the bribe recipient's official position had an impact on
the evaluation ofseriousness: The scenario was evaluated as the most serious when
the bribe was accepted by a county judge in exchange for a lighter sentence, as less
serious when accepted by a legislator in exchange for voting for a law favoring a
company, and as the least serious when accepted by a police officer in exchange for
noninterference with an illegal gambling operation.
. The study by Rossi et aI. (1974) indicated that the seriousness ofbribery was not
evaluated equally for the two parties involved. On a nine-point scale, the
acceptance ofa bribe by a public official was evaluated as more serious (average
score 6.240) than the offer of a bribe to a public official (average score 5.394).
Similarly, Wolfgang et al. (1985) found that the acceptance ofa bribe by a legislator
was evaluated as more serious than the offer ofa bribe by a company to a legislator,
even when the amount of the bribe accepted was one tenth the amount of the bribe
offered. A recent study by Rebovich and Layne (2000) confirmed the conclusion
that the acceptance of a bribe by a public official was viewed as more severe than
the offer of a bribe by either a private citizen or a corporation.
When perceptions of seriousness of white-collar crime are compared to
perceptions of seriousness of other types of crime, white-collar crimes are ranked
among the more serious, but not the most serious, types of crime. Rossi et al.
(1974) reported that respondents considered accepting a bribe to be approximately
as serious as practicing medicine without a license, burglarizing a home and stealing
a television set, embezzling company funds, stealing a car for the purpose ofresale,
and beating someone up during a riot. Similarly, Wolfgang et aI. (1985) found that
respondents evaluated bribe acceptance by a police officer as being approximately
as serious as setting fire to a building and thus causing $10,000 worth of damage,
paying a witness to give false testimony in a criminal trial, intentionally injuring a
victim so that the victim had to be treated by a physician and hospitalized, and
stealing property worth $10,000 from outside a building.
In an attempt to examine the degree to which public evaluations of crime in
general and white-collar crime in particular may have changed, Cullen, Link, and
Polanzi (1982) replicated the study by Rossi et aI. (1974) and found not only that
the absolute evaluations of the seriousness of white-collar crime scenarios had in-
creased but also that the mean seriousness rankings ofthe white-collar crime cases
had increased more than those of any other crime category (Cullen et aI., 1982, p.
92).
Descriptions of the cases used in studies of crime severity have rarely included
police officers as victims. Rossi et al. (1974) included several versions of a few
28 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
cases with variations in victim descriptions. In every case (i.e., planned killing, im-
pulsive killing, assault with a gun, beating up) in which the victim's characteristics
varied and included either a police officer, a spouse, or a stranger, crimes com-
mitted against a police officer were evaluated as more serious than the same crimes
committed against a spouse or a stranger.
students belonging to the same culture: The ratings by male college students were
far more similar to the ratings by police officers than were the ratings by female
college students.
A few studies have examined how police officers viewed specific types ofcrime.
For example, based on a sample of 672 police officers from three police agencies,
Cheurprakobkit, Kuntee, and Vaughn (1998) examined the attitudes of police
officers toward the drug war in Thailand. When comparing drug-related crimes to
the VCR Index Crimes, the police officers evaluated drug-related crimes as less
serious than murder, burglary, and vehicle theft but more serious than forcible rape,
larceny, and aggravated assault (Cheurprakobkit et al., 1998, p. 90).
Wilson, Cullen, Latessa, and Wills (1985) sought to examine how police officers
evaluated the seriousness of victimless crimes. Although they did not ask directly
about the seriousness of such crimes, they confronted the respondents-police
officers from a small midwestern city-with the related question ofthe appropriate
punishment ("how the courts should respond to victimless crimes") (Wilson et al.,
1985). More than 95 percent of the respondents argued that selling drugs, per-
forming illegal abortions, and selling child pornography deserved imprisonment and
thus indicated that these crimes topped the list of25 victimless crimes. On the other
hand, fewer than 25 percent of the respondents perceived that running a gambling
operation involving football scores, selling liquor on Sundays without a license,
being a male customer in a client-prostitution transaction, selling adult pornog-
raphy, loitering on school property, or being publicly intoxicated deserved
imprisonment.
One of the earliest studies that both included descriptions of police misconduct
cases and involved police officers as respondents asked police officers in "a
southern city" to evaluate the level of"wrongness" or perceived deviance ofseveral
cases of police misconduct (Barker, 1978). The respondents evaluated police
brutality as the least serious form of misconduct (with a score of6.72), less serious
than having sex while on duty (7.49) or sleeping while on duty (7.95). Forms of
police misconduct that were evaluated as the most serious included police perjury
(8.58) and drinking while on duty (8.72). .
More recently, Martin (1994) and Knowles (1996) asked samples of police
officers from Illinois and Ohio to evaluate the seriousness of a number of short
hypothetical cases ofpolice misconduct, ranging from police corruption and perjury
to use of excessive force and drug use. The results from both Illinois and Ohio
indicated that the acceptance ofa bribe and the theft ofproperty were always ranked
on the more serious side of the scale, while the acceptance of free food and the
fixing of a parking ticket were ranked on the less serious side (Knowles, 1996;
Martin, 1994).
30 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
'The U.S. part ofthe study was conducted j ointly with Carl B. Klockars, William E. Harver, and
Maria R. Haberfeld. It was supported by grant # 95-IJ-CX-0058 from the National Institute ofJustice.
I would like to acknowledge the financial and logistic support given by the Croatian Ministry of the
Interior for the Croatian part of the study.
32 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
Respondents were also asked seven questions regarding each ofthe 11 cases (see
Appendix B). The question that was selected for the analyses presented in this
article asked the respondents to estimate the seriousness of the behavior described
in each case. The answers, presented as a five-item Likert-type scale, ranged from
"not at all serious" (1) to "very serious" (5).
One ofthe challenges related to surveys ofpolice officers, especially in sensitive
subject areas such as police misconduct, is officers' reluctance to participate. To
increase the likelihood that police officers would participate in this study,
anonymity was guaranteed and the questions that dealt with demographic
characteristics were limited in order to reduce the chances that respondents could
be identified.
The analyses began with an examination of evaluations of case seriousness
provided by police officers and students within the same country. The expectation
was that, although absolute evaluations ofseriousness between the two groups may
differ to a certain extent, their relative rankings would be very similar. The second
stage in the analyses focused on the comparison of seriousness evaluations across
the two countries. Once again, although differences were expected in both police
officers' and students' absolute evaluations of seriousness, very few differences
were expected in regard to their relative rankings across the two countries.
THE RESPONDENTS
The sample of Croatian police officers was a stratified national sample that
included a substantial proportion ofpolice officers from the entire country. Forty-
one stations were selected in a manner that reflected as closely as possible the
national distribution of the Croatian police by region, size, type, and district. The
questionnaires were sent by a police courier to each ofthe police stations. Because
of the interest in learning about police culture, the goal was to distribute
questionnaires to all police officers employed in the 41 police agencies. Although
transparency is viewed as one of the key elements of democratic policing, the
questionnaires were distributed to police officers during a period between two large
military and police operations in 1995. Such timing limited the information that
was available to the public, including the size ofthe police agencies. According to
the available information, the response rates in the surveyed police agencies were
very high, above 80 percent. A total of2,000 questionnaires were distributed across
41 agencies (whose total number of sworn police officers was approximately
2,000). As many as 1,649 questionnaires were filled out and returned, yielding a
response rate of approximately 82 percent.
Because the Croatian police are a rather young police force (established in the
early 1990s), it is by no means surprising that most of the police officers in the
International Criminal Justice Review 33
study (74 percent) had been police officers for less than five years, and most (85
percent) had worked at their present police station for less than five years. About
19 percent ofthe respondents were employed in the supervisory ranks. Most ofthe
police officers reported performing patrol (41 percent) or traffic (21 percent)
assignments. Most worked in police agencies that were small (25-75 officers) or
medium-sized (75-200 officers).
The U.S. sample consisted of sworn police officers from 30 police agencies.
Unlike the Croatian sample, the U.S. sample was a convenience sample. Municipal
police agencies are overrepresented, and the sample includes no state police
agencies, only one sheriffs agency, and one county police agency. In terms of
geographic location of the agencies surveyed, the sample overrepresents police
agencies in the Northeast, although it does contain agencies in the South, the
Southeast, and the Southwest.
Although, as in Croatia, an attempt was made to have the questionnaires
distributed to and completed by all police officers employed in the selected
agencies, the response rates varied from 16 percent to 93 percent. In more than half
of the agencies in the sample (57 percent), the majority of the police officers
employed by the agency participated in the study. Furthermore, in an additional one
quarter of the agencies (23.3 percent), between 40 percent and 50 percent of the
police officers participated, and in only 20 percent ofthe surveyed agencies was the
response rate lower than 40 percent. Unreported analyses confirmed that the
representation of supervisors among the respondents from each agency was not
systematically related to the response rates.
The survey yielded a sample of 3,235 respondents. Only one in four police
officers in the study had been a police officer for less than five years.
Approximately one in five respondents (19.8 percent) was employed at a
supervisory rank. Most police officers (63.1 percent) reported performing patrol
34 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
assignments. The majority of the officers in the sample (59.9 percent) reported
working in very large agencies (more than 500 sworn officers).
THE RESULTS
2Relatively small differences in absolute terms, such as .30 on a five-point scale in Case 4, were
statistically significant in part because of the large sample size. In evaluating whether a statistically
significant difference in mean seriousness scores also signaled a real and meaningful difference of
opinion, I used a rule ofthumb by regarding only the differences in the mean scores that exceeded .50
in absolute terms on a five-point scale as substantively important.
Table 1
Reports of Their Own Perceptions of Offense Seriousness by Croatian College Students and Police Officers
Mean
Case number and description Mean Rank Mean Rank r-test
difference
4.31
8 3.03
4.55
5
10
+.79
-.24
11.21***
-4.50***
-'"
l:l
~
10 ~.
~
p < .OS. p < .01. p < .001. ~
~.
w
Ul
36 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
The two cases that the police officers evaluated as substantially more serious than
the students included Case 2 (free meals, discounts on beat) and Case 3 (bribe from
speeding motorist). The college students were more tolerant of the acceptance of
free meals and discounts on the beat (Case 2) than the police officers were.
Although police officers and students may be equally likely to perceive the
acceptance of freebies and other gratuities as a normal way of social
communication, education in law and knowledge of internal rules seem to have
enabled the police officers to better differentiate between the situations in which
"let me buy you a drink" cultural norms apply and the situations in which those
norms should not apply.
The college students also evaluated Case 3 (bribe from speeding motorist) as
substantially less serious than the police officers. This is an especially probing case
because the corrupt activity described in the scenario involves both police officers
and citizens. Consequently, it is quite revealing that the members of the police
profession-the potential bribe takers--evaluated the acceptance of a bribe from
a motorist as more serious than the citizens-the potential bribe givers. One
plausible explanation is that the consequences of such an activity may be more
severe for police officers than for citizens: In addition to being as exposed to
criminal prosecution as citizens would be (albeit probably with a more serious
punishment attached), police officers would likely be dismissed from the police
force and thus lose their jobs. An additional explanation for the differences is that
college students may be more willing to underestimate the seriousness of a case of
police misconduct that they can imagine involving themselves as bribe givers
(compared to other cases of police misconduct that involve other citizens).
The next two cases in which the citizens' opinions differed substantially from the
opinions of the police officers are Case 8 (cover-up of police Dill accident) and
Case 10 (excessive force on car thief). Compared to the other cases in the
questionnaire, these two are rather atypical. The first case describes a corrupt
behavior that does not involve direct material gain and can be interpreted as a.
misjudged case of police collegiality. The second case is the only one in the
questionnaire that describes the use ofexcessive force (and not police corruption).
Although the behavior described in the case definitely could be classified. as a
violation of official rules and a criminal activity, because of their everyday
experience, police officers are probably more likely than college students to
understand the adrenaline rush that follows such a chase and the related challenge
of being able to momentarily refrain from violence once the suspect is subdued.
Third, the emphasis on evaluations of relative case seriousness in the previous
crime severity literature calls for a comparison of relative perceptions of
seriousness. Ranking the mean estimates of seriousness for each group, from the
least serious to the most serious (Table 1), suggests that the college students and the
police officers ranked the cases very similarly. Spearman's correlation coefficient
International Criminal Justice Review 37
is very high (.873), suggesting that citizens and police officers indeed share a
hierarchy of seriousness of police misconduct cases (see Table 2).
Table 2
The U.S. samples consisted of two groups: one without prior practical police
experience and limited theoretical knowledge (college students) and one with
extensive practical experience and theoretical knowledge about policing (police
officers). Three key results stand out (see Table 3).
First, similarly to the Croatian respondents, the U.S. students and police officers
also evaluated the II cases to be ofvarying seriousness, with group means ranging
from 1.37 to 4.97 on a five-point scale. Like the Croatian respondents, the U.S.
respondents evaluated the cases describing the acceptance of gratuities (Case
2-free meals, discounts on beat; Case 4--holiday gifts from merchants) and the
case of off-duty employment (Case l-off-duty security system business) as the
least serious. The three cases that were evaluated as the most serious (Case
3-bribe from speeding motorist; Case 5-erime scene theft of watch; Case
II-theft from found wallet) by both the U.S. police officers and college students
are virtually the same cases that the. Croatian respondents identified as the most
serious.
w
00
Table 3 ~
~
1::>'
Reports of Their Own Perceptions of Offense Seriousness by U.S. College Students and Police Officers
~
.g
College students Police officers ~
~
Mean ~
~
Case number and description Mean Rank Mean Rank r-test ;:;:
difference
Case 9-Drinks to ignore late bar closing 3.73 7 4.54 8 -.81 -13.74***
Second, the college students evaluated 9 of the 11 cases as less serious than the
police officers. Because the differences between the means for the college students
and the police officers exceeded the .50 difference in absolute terms relatively
frequently (in 7 out of 11 scenarios), the discussion below will focus on the cases
for which the means for the two groups did not differ substantially.
One such case is Case 1 (off-duty security system business). This describes a
behavior that, according to two thirds ofthe U.S. police officers participating in this
study, is not against the rules in a number ofsurveyed police agencies and definitely
is not against the law in the United States (although it is forbidden in Croatia by a
national law). Therefore, it is not surprising that both the U.S. students and the U.S.
police officers evaluated this particular scenario as the least serious of all.
On the other end of the scale of seriousness is Case 5 (crime scene theft of
watch). This case was evaluated as the most serious by both the college students
and the police officers and there is no substantive difference between the means for
these two groups. The case depicts a behavior that is clearly criminal even if the
offender is not a police officer and is probably perceived as more serious when
committed by a person who is violating his or her professional authority to perform
the act.
Case I0 (excessive force on car thief) is another case for which the evaluations
of seriousness by the college students and the police officers were similar.
Although excessive force may have been used too frequently by some police
agencies in the U.S., as the Christopher Commission reported about the Los
Angeles Police Department (1991), strong public reactions that follow widely
publicized incidents of excessive force may send a clear message about the
inappropriateness of such conduct to both the general public and police officers
alike, resulting in similar perceptions of seriousness by citizens and by police
officers.
Case 8 (cover-up ofpolice DUl accident) is the only case for which the students'
evaluations ofseriousness exceeded those ofthe police officers in numerical terms,
although the difference was not large enough to be of substantive importance.
Third, analogously to the Croatian results, despite the differences in absolute
evaluations of seriousness between the police officers and the college students, the
rankings of the mean estimates of seriousness for the U.S. police officers and
college students turned out to be very similar (see Table 2). Like the strong positive
correlation between the rankings ofthe Croatian college students and the Croatian
police officers (.873), the correlation coefficient for the rankings ofthe U.S. college
students and the U.S. police officers was also very high (.882).
absolute mean values assigned to each case by police officers from the U.S. and
Croatia indicates that, although the differences were statistically significant in all
11 cases, in the majority ofthe cases (6 of 11) there were no substantive differences
(see Table 4). The only case that the Croatian police officers perceived as
substantially more serious is Case 1 (off-duty security system business), which is
by no means surprising inasmuch as the case describes a behavior that is against the
official rules in Croatia and, according to two thirds of our respondents from the
V.S., is not a violation of official rules in their agencies. In the remaining four
cases with substantive differences (Case 4-holiday gifts from merchants; Case
6-auto repair shop 5% kickback; Case 9-drinks to ignore late bar closing; Case
1D--excessive force on car thief), the V.S. police officers evaluated these cases as
more serious than their Croatian counterparts. A particularly interesting case is
Case 10 (excessive force on car thief). The infamous Rodney King case, which was
extensively televised and was undoubtedly closely followed by the police across the
V.S., probably had a long-term effect on how police officers in the U.S. view the
use of excessive force. On the other hand, the lack of such highly visible cases in
Croatia and the war in the early 1990s (in which the police played one of the key
defensive roles) likely shaped the way Croatian police officers view cases involving
the use of excessive force.
Second, absolute evaluations of seriousness by college students from the two
countries were even more similar than those reported by police officers (see Table
5). The means were substantially different in only two cases (the differences were
statistically significant in 8 out of 11 cases). Differences in the extent to which off-
duty behavior (Case l--off-duty security system business) is prohibited in the two
countries, which are also visible in the police officer results, are reflected in the
student evaluations of seriousness as well. Not surprisingly, the Croatian college
students evaluated Case 1 as substantially more serious than their V.S. counterparts.
The second case that the Croatian students regarded as substantially more serious
than the U.S. students is the only case describing misconduct by a supervisor (Case
7-supervisor: holiday for tune-up).
Finally, comparing relative seriousness of cases across the samples of police
officers and college students from the two countries (Table 2) yields very high rank-
order correlations. A comparison of rank-ordered means for the Croatian and V.S.
students suggests that there was a great degree of similarity in the rankings
produced by these representatives of the middle class in both societies (the
correlation coefficient is .91). Similarly, a comparison of the rank-ordered means
for police officers from these two countries clearly suggests that the police officers
shared an understanding ofthe hierarchy of seriousness (the correlation coefficient
is .91).
Table 4
Reports of Their Own Perceptions of Offense Seriousness by Croatian and U.S. Police Officers
Mean
Case number and description Mean Rank Mean Rank t-test
difference
3.85
3
6
3.03
4.54
4
8
-.24
-.69
-5.04***
-18.27*** -
::I
I:l
Q
.
Case 1D-Excessive force on car thief 3.03 5 4.05 5 -1.02 -21.63*** S
~
Case II-Theft from found wallet 4.55 10 4.85 9 -.31 -11.01*** ?
~
r;'
<I>
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001. - ::tl
~
~.
~
~
N
~
Table 5 ~
I:l'
~
Reports of Their Own Perceptions of Offense Seriousness by Croatian and U.S. College Students .g
~
Croatian college students U.S. college students ~
~
'<:
Mean ():
Case number and description Mean Rank Mean Rank r-test
difference
Case 9-Drinks to ignore late bar closing 3.38 4 3.73 7 -.35 -4.32
CONCLUSION
Classic studies of crime severity, such as Sellin and Wolfgang (1964) and
Wolfgang et al. (1985), typically examined the seriousness of offenses in general
and rarely targeted offenses committed by police officers. This article fills the void
in the literature by examining perceptions ofthe seriousness of police misconduct.
The results show that the respondents' characteristics were related to their
judgment. Indeed, a comparison of the absolute scores of seriousness for police
officers and college students within a country suggests that the police officers
tended to evaluate the described cases ofpolice misconduct as more serious than the
college students evaluated them. This result holds across the two cultures and is
consistent with the results of Sellin and Wolfgang's seminal research (1964).
Furthermore, a comparison of the seriousness rankings of police misconduct
cases across the two countries is also consistent with the general conclusion from
Sellin and Wolfgang (1964): Crime seriousness should be viewed as a shared
understanding or hierarchy. Despite the inherent limitations ofnonrandom samples,
the results of this article clearly indicate that police officers and citizens from two
countries as diverse in terms of their legal, economic, social, and political
environments as the U.S. and Croatia share the understanding ofthe seriousness of
misconduct committed by police officers. For example, accepting free meals and
drinks and occasional holiday gifts without an explicit quid pro quo arrangement
was consistently evaluated as substantially less serious than covering up a police
Dill accident or accepting drinks to ignore a late bar closing, which, in turn, were
evaluated as less serious than stealing money from a found wallet or stealing a
watch from a crime scene. In fact, relative rankings of seriousness of the 11 cases
were remarkably similar across all groups ofrespondents surveyed in this research.
In sum, the results of this article expand upon the previous findings of shared
hierarchy of crime seriousness by showing that the perceptions of the severity of
police misconduct are also shared across cultures and thus transcend national
boundaries.
Learning about police officers' perceptions of seriousness is crucial for
researchers, policy makers, and police administrators alike. First, data collection
about perceptions ofseriousness shared by both police officers and the public could
be very helpful in measuring police misconduct. Periodic collection and analysis
of data can help to assess not only the dynamic of the overall prevalence of police
misconduct but also the dynamic ofrelative growth of police misconduct stratified
by its seriousness. For example, a police chief or administrator should probably be
much less concerned about a moderate growth in relatively benign forms of police
misconduct (e.g., accepting gratuities or free drinks) than about even the slightest
growth in serious forms of police misconduct (e.g., accepting bribes from speeding
motorists, opportunistic thefts).
44 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
REFERENCES
Adams, K. (1996). Measuring the prevalence of police abuse offorce. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), Police
violence: Understanding and controllingpolice abuse offorce (pp. 52-93). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Barker, T. (1978). An empirical study of police deviance other than corruption. Journal ofPolice Science and
Administration, 6, 264-272.
Beck, A., & Lee, R. (2002). Attitudes to corruption amongst Russian police officers and trainees. Crime, Law,
& Social Change, 38,357-372.
Cheurprakobkit, S., Kuntee, P., & Vaughn, M. S. (1998). Drugs in Thailand: Assessing police attitudes.
International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42,81-100.
Christopher Commission. (1991). Report ofthe independent commission on the Los Angeles Police Department.
Los Angeles: Christopher Commission.
Criminal Justice Commission. (1995). Ethical conduct and discipline in the Queensland Police Service: The
views of recruits, first year constables. and experienced officers. Brisbane, Australia: Criminal Justice
Commission.
Criminal Justice Commission. (1999). Ethics surveys offirst year constables: Summary offindings 1995-1999.
Brisbane, Australia: Criminal Justice Commission.
International Criminal Justice Review 45
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Polanzi, C. W. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have attitudes toward
white-collar crime changed? Criminology, 20, 83-102.
Figlio, R. M. (1975). The seriousness of offenses: An evaluation by offenders and nonoffenders. Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 66, 189-200.
Harris, D. A. (1997). "Driving while black" and all other traffic offenses: The Supreme Court and pretextual
traffic stops. Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology, 87,544--582.
Hsu, M. (1973). Cultural and sexual differences on the judgment ofcriminal offenses. Journal ofCriminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 64,348-353. .
Huon, G. F., Hesketh, B. L., Frank, M. G., McConkey, K. M., & McGrath, G. M. (1995). Perceptions ofethical
dilemmas. Payneham, Australia: National Police Research Unit.
Kelly, D. H., & Winslow, R. W. (1970). Seriousness of delinquent behavior: An alternative perspective. British
Journal ofCriminology, 10, 124-135.
Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., & Haberfeld, M. R. (Eds.). (2003). The contours ojpolice integrity.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., Harver, W. E., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2000). The measurement ojpolice
integrity (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Knapp Commission. (1972). Knapp Commission report on police corruption. New York: Knapp Commission.
Knowles, J. J. (1996). The Ohio police behavior study. Columbus, OH: Office of Criminal Justice Services.
Kraska, P. B., & Kappeler, V. E. (1999). To serve and pursue: Exploring police sexual violence against women.
In V. E. Kappeler (Ed.), Police and society (pp. 325-345). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Kutnjak lvkovich, S. (2003). To serve and collect: Measuring police corruption. Journal ojCriminal Law and
Criminology, 93, 593--649.
Martin, C. (1994). Illinois municipal officers' perceptions ojpolice ethics. Chicago: lllinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority.
McConkey, K. M., Huon, G. F., & Frank, M. G. (1996). Practical ethics in the police service. Payneham,
Australia: National Police Research Unit.
McCormack, R. J. (1986). Corruption in the subculture ofpolicing: An empirical study of police officer
perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, New York.
Mollen Commission. (1994). New York City commission to investigate allegations ojpolice corruption and the
anti-corruption procedures ofthe police department: Commission report. New York: Mollen Commission.
Rebovich, D. J., & Layne, J. (2000). The national public survey on white collar crime. Morgantown, WV:
National White Collar. Crime Center.
Rossi, P. H., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1974). The seriousness of crime: Normative structure and individual
differences. American Sociological Review, 39,224-237.
Rossi, P. H., Simpson, J. E., & Miller, J. L. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the
crime. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 1, 59-90.
Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement ofdelinquency. New York: Wiley.
Son, 1. S., & Davis, M. S. (1998). Race and its effect on police officers' perceptions of misconduct. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 26, 21-28.
Velez-Diaz, A., & Megargee, E. I. (1971). An investigation of differences in value judgments between youthful
offenders and nonoffenders in Puerto Rico. Journal ofCriminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 61,
549-553.
Wilson, G. P., Cullen, F. T., Latessa, E. 1., & Wills, J. S. (1985). State intervention and victimless crimes: A study
of police attitudes. Journal ojPolice Science and Administration, 13,22-29.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., Tracy, P. E., & Singer, S. I. (1985). The national survey oj crime severity.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Worden, R. E., & Catlin, S. E. (2002). The use and abuse offorce by police. In K. M. Lersch (Ed.), Policing and
misconduct (pp. 85-120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40 ",
1 . .{ .,... ~.'
...... :' .. '
46 Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic
Appendix A
Case 1 A police officer runs his own private business in which he sells and
installs security devices, such as alarms, special locks, etc. He does this
work during his off-duty hours.
Case 2 A police officer routinely accepts free meals, cigarettes, and other items
of small value from merchants on his beat. He does not solicit these gifts
and is careful not to abuse the generosity of those who give gifts to him.
Case 3 A police officer stops a motorist for speeding. The officer agrees to
accept a personal gift ofhalfofthe amount ofthe fine in exchange for not
issuing a citation.
Case 4 A police officer is widely liked in the community, and on holidays local
merchants and restaurant and bar owners show their appreciation for his
attention by giving him gifts of food and liquor.
Case 5 A police officer discovers a burglary ofa jewelry shop. The display cases
are smashed and it is obvious that many items have been taken. While
searching the shop, he takes a watch, worth about two days pay for that
officer. He reports that the watch had been stolen during the burglary.
Case 6 A police officer has a private arrangement with a local auto body shop to
refer the owners of cars damaged in accidents to the shop. In exchange
for each referral, he receives a payment of 5% of the repair bill from the
shop owner.
Case 7 A police officer, who happens to be a very good auto mechanic, is
scheduled to work during coming holidays. A supervisor offers to give
him these days off, ifhe agrees to tune-up his supervisor's personal car.
Evaluate the SUPERVISOR'S behavior.
Case 8 At 2 a.m. a police officer, who is on duty, is driving his patrol car on a
deserted road. He sees a vehicle that has been driven off the road and is
stuck in a ditch. He approaches the vehicle and observes that the driver
is not hurt but is obviously intoxicated. He also finds that the driver is a
police officer. Instead ofreporting this accident and offense he transports
the driver to his home.
Case 9 A police officer finds a bar on his beat that is still serving drinks a half
hour past its legal closing time. Instead of reporting this violation, the
police officer agrees to accept a couple of free drinks from the owner.
Case 10 Two police officers on foot patrol surprise a man who is attempting to
.
,.
.
l.
'.,- ..
,"III;
break into an automobile. The man flees. They chase him for about two
blocks before apprehending him by tackling him and wrestling him to the
International Criminal Justice Review 47
Appendix B
4. If an officer in your agency engaged in this behavior and was discovered doing
so, what if any discipline do YOU think SHOULD follow?
1. NONE 4. PERIOD OF SUSPENSION
WITHOUT PAY
2. VERBAL REPRIMAND 5. DEMOTION IN RANK
3. WRITTEN REPRIMAND 6. DISMISSAL
5. Ifan officer in your agency engaged in this behavior and was discovered doing
so, what if any discipline do YOU think WOULD follow?
1. NONE 4. PERIOD OF SUSPENSION
WITHOUT PAY
2. VERBAL REPRIMAND 5. DEMOTION IN RANK
3. WRITTEN REPRIMAND 6. DISMISSAL
6. Do you think YOU would report a fellow police officer who engaged in this
behavior?
Definitely not Definitely yes
12345