AFTER L.A., WOULD YOUR LOCAL POLICE LIE? (FROM POLICE DEVIANCE, THIRD EDITION, P 155-168, 1994, THOMAS BARKER AND DAVID L CARTER, EDS. -- SEE NCJ-144538)

• NCJ Number: 144547
• Author(s): T Barker; R N Friery; D L Carter
• Date Published: 1994
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Training (Aid/Material)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

Based on tests administered to 167 "rookie" police officers attending a police academy, this study examined the extent of acceptance of various forms of police lying or deception.

Abstract

The testing was based in a theoretical model that specified three general patterns of police lies and deception: accepted lies, tolerated lies, and deviant lies. "Accepted" lies are those embraced as part of the police officer's working environment. Examples include deception necessary for undercover work, lies told to the public to calm a crisis situation, lies told to the media to protect the innocent, and lies told to protect the image of the department. "Tolerated" lies are those recognized as lies by the police, but are tolerated as necessary evils. This category of deception includes lying to the suspect in an interrogation and the misrepresentation of police policy so as to present an acceptable image to the public. "Deviant" lies are those that violate substantive or procedural laws or police department rules and regulations. Some of these lies are told in support of perceived legitimate goals, such as lying in court to obtain a conviction; and others are told in support of illegitimate goals, such as to avoid discipline or prosecution for misconduct or criminal behavior. Data were collected from the sample of 167 officers through a questionnaire constructed to describe officer background variables, measure the perception of police lies, and explore the relationship between selected background variables and the perception of police lies. Attitudes toward the lying categories were measured by "high acceptance," "moderate acceptance," and "low acceptance." Eighty-three percent of the officers viewed "accepted lying" as moderately acceptable, and "tolerated lying" was found unacceptable by only 14 percent of respondents. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents gave moderate acceptance to deviant lies told for legitimate purposes, and 8 percent of the officers viewed deviant lying for illegitimate purposes as moderately acceptable. These findings are sufficiently disturbing to warrant police managers' reassessment of the selection, training, and control of officers. 6 references, 3 study questions, and appended study instrument