Abstract
Should the termination of police officers for lying be a matter of public policy? All
recruits are required to swear an oath to uphold the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics upon
completing the police academy. This code says as follows:
"Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in
obeying the law and the regulations of my department... I recognize the badge of my office as a
symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics
of police service." (Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, n.d.).
There are many statements in this code that emphasize the moral integrity required of police
officers. Adhering to these standards is a prerequisite for police officers to become law
enforcement officials. Even police officers lie occasionally, but it expected of them to always be
truthful and impartial in the course of their official work. Police officers are permitted to lie
under certain circumstances, but these are limited to the course of their official work. Undercover
work and questioning tactics are examples of sanctioned lying for law enforcement personnel.
Because they are following the law in these situations, police officers are permitted to be
dishonest. Police officers still have to follow certain rules to avoid going too far in these
instances of dishonesty.
Testilying, the New York coined term, refers to perjury and other in-court deception
committed by police officers (Cunningham, 1999). Officers will provide testimony regarding the
issue at hand, but they may slightly distort the facts to support a guilty verdict. Even though
officers are not being entirely truthful, they do not consider this to be lying. Officers walk this
fine line between being truthful and being dishonest because they see it as an ethical middle
ground (Cunningham, 1999). Conversely, these officers are not only violating the law by lying,
but they are also acting unethically by lying. This raises the question of what happens to
dishonest police officers. What kind of punishment is meted out? Are the officers let go? While
lying is permissible in certain situations, such as when working undercover or conducting
investigations, officers who knowingly lie for improper purposes should be fired right away. Any
officer who fails to recognize that there is a distinct boundary between acceptable and prohibited
lying ought to be removed from their position as a law enforcement officer.
Loss of Credibility
A law-abiding citizen should come to mind when one thinks of a police officer. Officers
are expected to uphold a high standard of integrity, be dependable, and be honest (Alpert &
Noble, 2009). An officer loses all credibility of they lie without valid reason. In the background
check phase of the employment procedure, applicants are strongly cautioned not to try to conceal
any shortcomings and to be truthful. This is taken very seriously because it begs the question,
“How can someone be honest in a courtroom if they can’t be honest on a background packet?”
When making decisions, a judge relies on the worked of a police officer. For example, a citizen
was given a ticket for speeding. When appearing in court, the judge will question the officer
about how the citizen behaved, whether they admitted to their wrongdoing, and perhaps even
how the officer recommends they move forward. The court can no longer believe an officer
when they lie, even if they are telling the truth.
The Supreme Court Held in Brady v. Maryland that an officer’s dishonest acts must be
disclosed by the police department (Spector, 2008). Being dishonest renders a person an
untrustworthy witness, and they will be unable to testify going forward, which is why this
disclosure is required. Giglio v. United States established that the defendant is entitled to a new
and fair trial if the witness's testimony could establish the defendant’s guilt or innocence and
dishonesty was not revealed. (Spector, 2008). These incidents support the credibility of the
witnesses. A witness needs to be reliable and knowledgeable about the subject in order to be
taken seriously.
Loss of Public and Professional Trust
It is common to lose faith in someone who lies. Because it is well known that they lie
frequently, one may doubt everything they say. This also applies to police officers. When an
officer lies, not only do they lose the confidence of the public, but their supervisors, prosecutors,
and coworkers also stop believing in them. When an officer lies, all of their previous cases are
questioned from a professional perspective. When a prosecutor discovers that a police officer has
lied, they will not believe the officer again unless they can provide proof to support their account
(Cunningham, 1999). It is unpleasant to be placed in a situation where coworkers no longer value
the effort and hard work that is out forth. It is necessary to continuously defend one’s work and
offer evidence that it is appropriate. In terms of public perception, if the community is aware that
a police officer lies, they will begin to doubt the officer’s commitment to protecting them and
serving the community’s needs. Police Officers are entrusted with a great deal of power by the
public, and when that power is abused, the community begins to lose faith in the police
department as a whole (Alpert & Noble, 2009). An officer can illegally violate someone’s rights
or carry out other unethical and illegal actions if they are willing to lie. Lying is the first step
toward destruction.
Comparison to Citizens
In our society, lying to avoid trouble or punishment is commonplace. Similar to to other
people, police officers will lie whenever they think it’s necessary (Cunningham, 1999). The
distinction between the average citizen and a police officer is that the latter may face criminal
charges if the former lies during an investigation. If a citizen lies, prosecutors may charge them
with perjury or obstruction of justice (Cunningham, 1999). Police officers are discouraged from
lying in court or in their official capacity, even though they are trained to do so during
investigations and questioning (Hunt & Manning, 1991). How is an officer any different from
someone who knowingly lies about committing a crime if they are lying? Officers should not be
permitted to continue in their current capacity, even in the event that they are ot charged with a
crime for their dishonesty.
Opposing Viewpoints
It is assumed that police officers do not lie frequently because there is a lack of empirical
data to support this claim. When your word runs counter to an officer’s how can one demonstrate
they are lying? How can someone believe a police officer who lies when officers are even trained
to lie? Because it is commonly acknowledged that officers may lie during the pretrial
investigation, ethicists believe that lying not morally wrong (Cunningham, 1999). How can
society view lying as wholly incorrect if most people lie and officers are trained to do so?
According to the Bible, “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his
delight.” Proverbs 12:22 (King James Version). It is obvious that lying is immoral if the Lord
detests it. It is between them and our Lord, even thought we are unable to determine the quantity
or frequency of lying. That does not however, imply that we should ignore your lies and fail to
correct them. Every action that is taken has consequences.
Officers on the force have the right to use force to prevent harm to others: “it holds that in
any situation in which police would be justified in using force to achieve legitimate ends, they
would not only be justified in using lies, but lies would be a preferable alternative.” (Page 543,
Klakkars, 1984). Sometimes police will tell lies to take control of a situation, like taling down to
a suicidal person. It is best practice, though, to avoid lying in situations like these as it will only
make things worse. The application of force continuum begins with verbal commands, such as
lies, and progresses to more severe force when necessary. Vernal commands are typically similar
to “ STOP!”, or “DO NOT MOVE!”, not deliberate lies.
Some people might argue that terminating an officer is a bit harsh, even if they are found
to be lying. These cops go through a rigorous training program that includes several months in
the police academy. The family of the officer will suffer if they are fired. The officer’s pay will
end, which might put a great deal of strain on the family. Because of the circumstances
surrounding their termination, there is no assurance that the officer will be able to find
employment at all, let alone that they will find it quickly. Such cases may result in an officer
losing their spouse, children, or both, or in them becoming mentally ill and attempting suicide.
The officer must keep in mind that because of their profession, they are held to higher standards,
despite the fact that this a depressing possibility. When they choose to lie, they have to consider
their family. While it is regrettable that the officer’s family must suffer, an unjustified lie by an
officer all affects the defendant’s family. When a wrong is committed then it must be corrected.
Proposed Policy
Officer’s would be fired under a proposed policy if they are engaged in dishonest,
malevolent, or delibirate lying or misconduct. It is important to let the public know that lying is
wrong and will not be accepted. Police are supposed to protect the community, but they cant do
that if they lie viciously and without reason. The department would have to take into account all
of the circumstances when it comes to officers who made that one mistake. Extreme termination
occurs sometimes, like when someone lies on order from a superior. The fact that the officer was
coerced in this case does not excuse it though. There is a clear line between authorized and
forbidden lying, and an officer that does not understand this fact should not be able to continue
his or her work as a law enforcement officer.
References
Alpert, G. P., & Noble, J.J (2009). Lies, true lies, and conscious deception: Police
Officers and the truth. Police Quarterly, 12(2), 237-
254.doi:10.1177/1098611108327315
Cunningham, L. (1999). Taking on testilying: The prosecutor’s response to in court police
deception. Criminal Justice Ethics, 18 (1), 26.
Hunt, J., & Manning, P.K. (1991). The social context of police lying. Symbolic Interaction,
14(1), 51-70. doi:10. 1525/si.1991.14.1.51
Klockars, C. B. (1984). Blue lies and police placebos: The moralities of police lying. American
Behavioral Scientist, 27(4), 529-544. doi:10.1177/000276484027004007
Spector, E. (2008). Chief's Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter
of Public Policy?
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?
fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1458&issue-id=42008
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
