In their examination of whistle-blowing practices -- i.e. instances where the code of silence was willingly and voluntarily broken -- in law enforcement agencies, Rothwell & Baldwin (2007) identified several factors that appear to have a large effect on individual officers' adherence to the code of silence. Surprisingly, tenured officers are more likely to report misconduct to superiors and others, largely because they have less to fear in the way of occupational and career-affecting reprisals (Rothwell & Baldwin 2007). At first, this appears to be an encouraging sign -- officers that hold higher positions within the various law enforcement agencies are more likely to ensure that their peers and the officers underneath them adhere to the ethical practices expected of them. Yet these findings also show that younger or less tenured officers still perceive the code of silence as a way of getting ahead, suggesting that this code still provides the dominant culture of many law enforcement agencies (Rothwell & Baldwin 2007). That is, there is a perception that it is not essential or even advisable for an officer with lower seniority/tenure to report abuses if they wish to advance in their careers within the field of law eforcement. Given the noted importance of the role of supervisors in the recognition and reporting of instances of misconduct, it is especially telling that the code of silence is associated with career advancement (Rothwell & Baldwin 2007).

In the area of corrections enforcement, the issue of the code of silence takes another disturbing turn. The abuse of offenders, along physical, psychological, and sexual lines, is a well-recorded and oft-decried phenomenon, but the tracking and discipline of various instances of abuse is made difficult by the code of silence practiced not only by corrections and law enforcement officers, but also by the victims of...

The mechanism by which this offshoot of the code of silence operates is similar to that at work among enforcement officers themselves, with the fear of additional abuse and official reprisals (i.e. poor reports to probation boards, etc.) serving as the main impetus for offenders and inmates to remain silent about the abuse they receive (Smith & Yarussi 2007). This also contributes to the general climate of corruption fostered by the code of silence in that it rewards both officers and offenders who refrain from reporting the abuse, while firmly planting a severe mistrust of law enforcement personnel and agencies in the public mind.
There is some evidence that shows the code of silence is not as widespread and pervasive as was previously thought, or as was the actual case a decade or two ago, and in fact it has been suggested that law enforcement officers are less likely than their civilian counterparts to maintain a rigid code of silence (Rothwell & Baldwin 2007). This does not mean that the issue has been eliminated, however, or that there is not still a pressing need to make law enforcement officers and agencies aware of the detriment they cause to themselves, the field of law enforcement, and the pubic at large when they maintain this code. The ethics of law enforcement demand that officers be held accountable, and hold each other accountable, for any and all misconduct.