Introduction
Sexual misconduct —any form of proscribed sexual contact—by workers in the criminal justice system—courts, law enforcement, and corrections—is pervasive and has a long history in the various occupations that make up the formal systems of social control. That focus is too broad for this inquiry. Our focus is on the policework occupation (Barker 2011. Italics used whenever referring to the policework occupation ). The nature of the duties makes policework a morally dangerous occupation wherever it has been established. Virtually every US police agency has a history of police misconduct and that includes police sexual misconduct (Klockers et al. 2000). Why? The workers, policework occupation , perform their discretionary duties in private settings without supervision or witness, and their coworkers are reluctant to report misconduct. The book will closely examine PSM in the United States; however, police misconduct including police sexual misconduct is not just an American problem. Police misconduct is an occupational deviance problem throughout the world. In 1915, the noted police authority Raymond Fosdick said the following,
Everywhere [he was commenting on European Police Systems] there are special pitfalls for the policeman, peculiar temptations to which he is continually exposed. The prostitute who walks the street, the bookmaker who plies his trade on the sidewalk, the public-house proprietor who would keep open after hours, the prisoner on his way to a cell, in short every man or woman who would escape the operation of the penalty of law and is ready to pay [favors, money, or sex] for immunity constitutes a menace to the integrity of the policeman. (Fosdick 1915: 369–370)
Police sexual misconduct and other forms of police misconduct are present to some extent in all police agencies globally. To present a global analysis of police sexual misconduct is beyond the scope of this book. However, when possible I present evidence from other countries to make a point or demonstrate the occupational nature of police sexual misconduct . I use American and UK examples as my main sources of information.
PSM in the UK
Police sexual misconduct examples in the UK are used repeatedly because: (1) the studies are in English, (2) there are numerous official and social media PSM accounts, (3) the London Metropolitan Public Paid Police Model is the basis for the American police model. Furthermore, police sexual misconduct in the UK police systems has a long history and is pervasive (Critchley 1967; Waddington 1999). An Observer study based on the UK Freedom of Information Act published in the Guardian found 1491 sexual misconduct complaints against police officers in England and Wales from 2012 to 2018 (Chaminda, May 18, 2019). Ten of the 33 police forces in England and Wales did not respond to the inquiry. The common police agency response in the United States and other countries is to not respond to media requests for damaging information.
The results of the Observer found that 371 complaints were upheld and resulted in the resignations of 197 police officers, special officers or community support officers. The largest number of complaints came from the London Metropolitan Police force with 594 complaints—119 were upheld. Among the overall complaints were: developing intimate sexual relationships with vulnerable members of the public—victims and suspects, child sexual abuse, producing and distributing child pornography , sexual harassment , and rape. The study concluded that there was a sexist culture among some officers leading to numerous complaints by colleagues of sexual harassment and sexual assault. There is a need for more empirical study of PSM in the UK and other global police agencies. The police sexual misconduct typology developed in this work will stimulate more interest and lead to more research and analysis.
PSM in the United States
Police sexual misconduct has a long history in American police agencies (see Eschholz and Vaughn 2001). Police sexual assaults by police officers were reported in 19% of the brutality cases in New York City from 1863 to 1894 (Johnson 2003). Reiss (1971) in his study of patrolmen in three American cities concluded that in any year a substantial minority of police officers engage in behavior that violates the criminal law, misbehaves toward citizens, and violates department rules and regulations. Those criminal violations include police sexual misconduct .
* * *
We examine police sexual misconduct (PSM ) as a form of occupational deviance and present a heuristic model—PSM Causal Equation—to explain PSM. The PSM Causal Equation is based on rational choice theory and has three dimensions: inclination, opportunity, and real or perceived low risk. The PSM Causal Equation Model is supported by data and theory—deterrence, self-control, social learning theories and a modified routine activities model—applied to police sexual misconduct . Finally, we develop an Empirical Typology of PSM and present Illustrative Examples of each type. Each PSM type is examined according to its “best fit” to the PSM Causal Equation.
Occupational Deviance
Occupational deviance is deviant (rule or norm-violating) behaviors—criminal and non-criminal—that occur because of the nature of the worker’s occupation (Bryant 1974). A worker with the inclination to engage in behavior proscribed by law, rules, or prescribed professional codes is presented with the opportunity because of their work duties. When the intersection of inclination and opportunity occurs under a perceived low-risk environment, the likelihood of occupational deviance is increased. This nexus—inclination, opportunity, and low risk—is impacted in police work settings by the unequal power relationship between the worker and his or her “client” (Barker 1977).
Policework is a unique occupation because law enforcement officers as representatives of the state engage in patterns of behavior not available to other citizens. Law enforcement officers (LEOs ) by law stop and search other citizens and interfere with their free movement including making arrests with or without a warrant. Citizens are always in an extortionate relationship when confronted by law enforcement officers because law enforcement officers may use force, including deadly force to compel their legitimate objectives. Furthermore, the occupational subculture of police work contains a set of shared understandings—norms—as to when, why, and against whom deadly force can be used (Waegel 1984; Barker , forthcoming). In the US procedural laws restrict these powers, but these limitations do little good on the street in police-citizen encounters with illegal intentions on the part of the officer. There is ample evidence to support the allegations of unnecessary or illegal stops by American law enforcement officers. These awesome powers are frequently abused for personal and venal reasons, making police misconduct including sexual abuse possible (Barker 1977; Chappell and Piquero 2004). However, policing is only one of many occupations that are sexual abuse-prone.
Sexual Abuse-Prone Occupations
Sexual misconduct is a pattern of deviant behavior common to occupations where workers and clients do not meet on equal terms of power and authority—sexual abuse-prone occupations . The noted British sociologist and police scholar, P.A.J. Waddington , called policing a “scandal-prone” occupation because of the numerous opportunities for misconduct, including sexual misconduct (Waddington 1999). There are numerous other “scandal prone” occupations —sexual abuse-prone occupations. Sexual abuse-prone relationships are most likely to occur in work-related settings where there is an unequal power differential between the victim and the perpetrator (Calhoun and Coleman 2002). That is, the victim is perceived to have less authority or status than the perpetrator, or conversely, the perpetrator possesses more enhanced power than the victim. States pass laws that prohibit sexual relationships between workers and clients in recognized sexual abuse occupations . Examples of such occupations that readily come to mind are priests and other religious clergy, coaches, doctors, and other medical workers or caregivers, college professors, and K-12 schoolteachers.
The current #MeToo movement has expanded the list of abuse-prone occupations exponentially including elected governmental officials—possibly the occupation with the most numerous examples of sexual abuse and cover-up. In effect, the work setting of sexual abuse-prone occupations creates an unequal power relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, increasing the likelihood of improper sexua...