Code of Silence: Breeding Ground

Code of Silence: Breeding Ground for Corruption

Camaraderie and teamwork are essential to the efficient and productive progress of any law enforcement team. Members of a given law enforcement agency or unit must be able to trust each other, and to depend on one another for both practical and moral support in difficult and often life threatening situations, and at times this can include trust in one another's discretion. This has led to the unspoken establishment of a code of silence, popularized as the "thin blue line" in the media and many law enforcement related television series and movies. The refusal to "rat out" or "snitch on" officers and other law enforcement for a wide range of illegal and/or unethical and undesirable actions and practices is one of the major problems facing law enforcement today, creating both internal ethical problems within the various law enforcement agencies suffering from the issue as well as practical concerns with the external efficacy of the various agencies, as the public has a greater perceived cause for mistrust of law enforcement personnel that may seem increasingly to stand for themselves rather than the greater good.

In addition to the public concerns created by this unofficial code of silence among law enforcement personnel, it also provides a breeding ground for corruption within the various units and agencies affected. When illegal and/or unethical practices and other grievances go unaired and unacknowledged, both by lower-level officers and personnel and by their superiors even in the higher echelons of government, it provides encouragement to other officers to perform the same actions and to utilize the same practices, or at least assures them that they, too, will not meet with punishment or even recognition of their wrongdoing. The true effect of the code of silence is hugely detrimental to law enforcement in general due to such corruption.

One major factor in the issue of the law enforcement code of silence is gender. From subtle misogynistic tendencies observable in almost every law enforcement agency and unit ever studied to instances of outright sexual harassment and misconduct, including rape, women in many law enforcement agencies are forced to endure working conditions that are vastly different from those of their male counterparts, and are expected to remain quiet about it (Fletcher 1995; Smith & Yarussi 2007). The code of silence is at work in such situations in two complex and interrelated ways. First, it is expected that the harassed and/or mistreated female officers will remain silent about their treatment; "hurting" the "team" with accusations, however true and well founded, can lead to reprisals from the agency such as lack of advancement and even increased harassment, which often culminates in an officer's decision to leave the agency due solely to the level of harassment they have endured (Fletcher 1995).

The second way in which the code of silence operates in such scenarios is possibly even more insidious. Studies have shown that male officers and personnel are encouraged to maintain the same silence so as not to damage the reputation of their agency and fellow officers, and furthermore it has been reported that any evinced displeasure or disapproval of such actions, even without breaking the code of silence by going to a superior, can lead to similar reprisals against that male officer (Fletcher 1995; Smith & Yarussi 2007). The end result is that officers engaging in such behaviors and remaining silent generally achieve greater levels of success within their departments and agencies, creating a work environment that perpetuates and encourages such behaviors and attitudes and leading to greater corruption.

The issue of the code of silence is not, of course, limited solely to cases involving gender-based discrimination. Any instance where loyalty is placed over integrity amounts to a corrupt utilization of this code of silence, and is detrimental to the public interest because it undermines the authority of the officers and agency involved in dealing with lawlessness in general (Rothwell & Baldwin 2007). 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).