Police ethics and integrity: Keeping the ‘blue code’ of silence
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355720947762 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Author | Steve Conway,Louise Westmarland |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
Police ethics and integrity: Keeping
2020, Vol. 22(4) 378–392
ª The Author(s) 2020
the ‘blue code’ of silence
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1461355720947762
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Louise Westmarland
Department of Social Policy and Criminology, The Open University, UK
Steve Conway
Policing Organisation and Practice, The Open University, UK
Abstract
This paper examines attitudes towards police ethics and integrity using the responses of police officers and support staff to
some ethical dilemmas via an online questionnaire. The aim of the study was to explore potential connections between
respondents’ beliefs about the seriousness or type of misdemeanour and their likelihood of reporting the behaviour. Using
a series of scenarios, we explore professional ethics and integrity by analysing the evidence from our survey of around
1,500 police officers, police community support officers (PCSOs) and police support staff. Throughout, we aim to show
which of the scenarios were considered the most ‘serious’, which are more likely to be reported, and offer some
suggestions as to why the ‘blue code’ is significant. The findings suggest the persistence of a reluctance to report some
misdemeanours; of the 10 scenarios created for the survey, there was a great deal of certainty around the reporting theft
of cash, but respondents were less likely to report a colleague keeping a ‘found’ watch. Accessing the Police National
Computer without due authority was seen as relatively ‘serious’ and covering up for a drink-driving colleague and use of
excessive force were both likely to be reported. We discovered ambiguities in responses around sexual touching of a
colleague in an office setting, but a lower level of concern regarding an officer who forms a romantic relationship with a
victim of crime who he met in a professional setting. Respondents expressed distrust in the force’s anonymous messenger
system, set up for reporting a colleague’s behaviour without revealing their own identity and said they could treat a
whistle-blower with respect or caution, depending on the circumstances of the individual case.
Keywords
Police ethics and integrity, college of policing, code of ethics, ‘blue code’ of silence, police corruption
Submitted 12 Feb 2020, Revise received 02 Jun 2020, accepted 22 Jun 2020
Introduction
since publication of the first code of ethics by the UK’s
College of Policing in 2014. One of the key issues
The study from which this paper is drawn aimed to consider
addressed in the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics is
ethics and integrity by studying attitudes towards the
the requirement for individual officers to report a colleague
reporting of colleagues’ rule-breaking within a UK police
who breaks a rule, law or regulation. The question of why
force. The so-called ‘blue code’ of silence is alleged to
officers may fail to speak up when they see other officers
protect misbehaving officers and staff from outside scru-
misbehaving or breaking the law is a long-running
tiny or punishment. We aimed to explore this code of
silence and the extent to which the seriousness or type of
infringements might influence a respondent to say they
Corresponding author:
would report certain behaviours. Police integrity and the
Professor Louise Westmarland, Department of Social Policy and Crimin-
reporting of rule-breaking continues to be an area of con-
ology, FASS, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK.
cern and public interest, especially as it is over five years
Email: Louise.westmarland@open.ac.uk
Westmarland and Conway
379
conundrum. These instances are often attributed to the
employed by Klockars et al. (2004). Building upon previ-
police’s ‘insider culture’ which maintains an impenetrable
ous studies by Westmarland, 2005 and Westmarland and
‘curtain’ of silence. Attempts to change this culture and
Rowe (2016), it addresses police rule-breaking, illegal and
‘professionalize’ policing led to the creation of the UK
unethical behaviour, and whether survey respondents
Home Office’s College of Policing in 2012 and the subse-
would report a colleague’s misdemeanours. In addition to
quent Code of Ethics (2014). The debate around the ‘blue
sworn police officers, we also invited police community
code’ continues, however, as more misdemeanours are
support officers (PCSOs) and police support staff to take
revealed as the police disciplinary process has included the
part in the study. The main focus of the survey was 10
publication of procedures and outcomes.
scenarios of misconduct and rule-breaking (n¼1,509). A
Over the past 50 years many studies of police beha-
few additional questions were also included which aimed
viour and attitudes have shown that officers often bend –
to ask specifically why officers might cover up for col-
and in some cases purposefully break – rules and regu-
leagues’ misdeeds. The survey was designed to capture the
lations (Cain, 1973; Skolnick, 1966; Van Maanen,
spectrum of police rule-breaking – from ‘minor’ infringe-
1978), but few are reported. This headline finding has
ments, to ‘harmful’ actions and violations of criminal law –
been replicated in more recent research (Caldero et al.,
which may be perceived by some respondents as excusable
2018; Kleinig, 1996; Punch, 2009; Westmarland, 2005)
actions.
and suggests it is a continuing trend. Observational stud-
In addition to previous US studies by Klockars et al.
ies have shown that officers use the power with which
(2004), Westmarland (2005: 151) as part of an earlier study
they are entrusted by the public to cover up, or fail to
also collected empirical data suggesting that only 50% of
report, colleagues’ misdeeds (Westmarland, 2005; West-
UK officers would definitely report a fellow officer cover-
marland and Rowe, 2016; Bacon, 2016; Loftus, 2009;
ing up for a drink-driving colleague. They were also
Rowe, 2007). Front line officers, who often work alone
unlikely to report excessive use of force, despite claiming
or in pairs, may lack close supervision, providing scope
to find it serious or ‘very serious’ (n¼275) (Westmarland,
to make a range of discretionary decisions that remain
2005). In a later study, Westmarland and Rowe, (2016)
unobserved. In some cases, officers have been shown to
found that although a greater percentage of respondents
commit misdemeanours for personal financial gain or
was willing to report drink-driving, they were still unlikely
sometimes in the belief that they are enacting ‘street
to snitch on colleagues they observed using excessive force
justice’, which can be termed ‘noble cause corruption’.
(n¼ 520). Although some of these and other corrupt beha-
Morton (1993) distinguishes between these two broad
viours may not be illegal, as Newburn (2015) points out,
categories as ‘bent for self’ and ‘bent for the job’,
they all, in different ways, involve the abuse of position.
although there are, of course many more definitions of
Newburn argues that most definitions of noble cause cor-
corruption, some of which are explored in more detail
ruption – where the actions are not illegal but the ends
later in this paper.
being sought are legitimate in organizational terms, tend
Following work by Westmarland (2005, 2013) and
to focus on personal rather than organizational gain
Westmarland and Rowe (2016), this paper is a further
(emphasis in the original) which is crucial to understanding
attempt to expand our understanding of a range of beha-
such conduct. Miller (2003) argues that there is very little
viours, and their relation to the police ‘code of silence’ by
‘organizational’ corruption in UK policing – suggesting
asking about attitudes towards rule-breaking and misde-
that individual acts are much more common. Miller
meanours. This includes examples of ‘acquisitive corrup-
(2003) is referring here to ‘organizational’ in the sense of
tion’ (for personal financial gain), ‘noble cause corruption’
‘organized’ crime or corruption, and he reports that cultural
(‘street justice’), potential sexual misconduct and minor
solidarity prevents officers from ‘telling on their own’ col-
rule infringements. As with the previous two surveys con-
leagues’ misbehaviour.
ducted by Westmarland and Rowe, 2016 and others, this
Although this paper does not claim to make direct links
study is designed to take account of police occupational
between police culture and corruption, we wish to add to
culture and the part it is said to play in the ‘blue code’.
the ‘seriousness and likely to report debate’ raised previ-
This includes Reiner’s (2010) suggestions that the origins
ously by the various studies using similar methods of
of camaraderie and team solidarity are the unpredictability
enquiry. The survey was designed to explore everyday
and potential danger of police work, and that a culture of
situations involving potential dilemmas with aspects of
pressure for results is a motivating factor for rule-bending
ethics and integrity via an online survey of serving police
(Maguire and Norris, 1974; Punch, 2009; Waddington,
officers and support staff in a large UK police force in 2017
1999).
(n¼1,509). It also reproduces two scenarios from Klockars
Despite obvious differences between policing in the
et al.’s earlier study (2004) and those by Westmarland
USA and UK, this paper uses methods similar to those
(2005). The new questions and scenarios were designed
380
International...
To continue reading
Request your trial