Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 69, Issue 5, pp 657–679 | Cite as

Police misconduct in Taiwan: comparing perceptions of the police and electronic gaming service workers

  • Shih-Ya Kuo
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the perceptions of police misconduct through a survey of police officers and electronic gaming service workers in Taiwan. A total of 297 police officers and 268 gaming workers in Taiwan participated in the survey-based study in which subjects were asked to state their views on the prevalence and likelihood of reporting of nine hypothetical police misconduct cases. The results were consistent with prior research indicating that both police and gaming workers rated some of the nine scenarios as more serious than others. Compared to gaming workers, police officers were more likely to rate the vignettes as examples of serious police misconduct, and to opine that violators should (and most likely would) be disciplined by their respective agencies. Overall, however, the police were less likely than gaming workers to report such police misconduct to higher authorities. Another consistent finding was that as the rank of the police officers increased, the likelihood of their ratings on police misconduct as a common practice decreased. The opposite was the case for gaming folks; the owners and managers of electronic-gaming stores believed such police misconduct was a common practice, while their respective clerks tended to view such misconduct as uncommon. Among the police, supervisors and anti-corruption officers were not likely to report such police misconduct, particularly those viewed as “petty” misconduct, inconsistent with the hypothesis. Also, no relationship was found between vignette seriousness and the prevalence among either police or gaming-worker respondents. Plausible explanations for inconsistent results were suggested.

Keywords

Police misconduct Taiwan Electronic gaming service workers Vignettes 

References

  1. 1.
    Chermak, S., McGarrell, E., & Gruenewald, J. (2006). Media coverage of police misconduct and attitudes toward police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29(2), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Global Corruption Barometer 2013: Report [GCB]. (2013). Transparency International. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from https://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/report.
  3. 3.
    Stanford, A. (2015). Copping Out: The Consequences of Police Corruption and Misconduct. Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutnjak Ivković, S., & Haberfeld, M. R. (Eds.). (2015). Measuring police integrity across the world: studies from established democracies and countries in transition. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutnjak Ivković, S. (2015). Studying police integrity. In S. Kutnjak Ivković & M. R. Haberfeld (Eds.), Measuring police integrity across the world: studies from established democracies and countries in transition (pp. 329–368). New York: Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, C., Bensinger, P. B., Baker, T. F. (1994). Illinois municipal officers’ perceptions of police ethics. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJRS 153467.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dormaels, A. (2015). Perceptions of corruption in Flanders: surveying citizens and police. A study on the influence of occupational differential association on perceptions of corruption. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 25(6), 596–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kutnjak Ivković, S. (2004). Evaluating the seriousness of police misconduct: a cross-cultural comparison of police officer and citizen views. International Criminal Justice Review, 14, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, M. E., Steyn, J., & Gopal, N. (2013). Exploring the public parameter of police integrity. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36(1), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klockars, C. B., & Kutnjak Ivković, S. (2004). Measuring police integrity. In M. Hickman, A. R. Piquero, & J. R. Greene (Eds.), Police integrity and ethics (pp. 3–20). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, S. M. (2014). An exploration of the Blue Code of Silence. University of Portsmouth, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trautman, N. (2001). Special report: Ethics–truth about the code of silence revealed. Law and Order, 49, 68–76.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2006). Ethical climates and contextual predictors of whistle-blowing. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(3), 216–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2007). Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the code of silence in police agencies in the State of Georgia. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutnjak Ivković, S., Haberfeld, M., Kang, W., Peacock, R., & Sauerman, A. (2016). A multi-country comparative study of the perceived police disciplinary environments. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(2), 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kutnjak Ivkovie, S., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2015). A comparative perspective on police integrity. In S. Kutnjak Ivkovie & M. R. Haberfeld (Eds.), Measuring Police Integrity Across the World: Studies from Established Democracies and Countries in Transition (pp. 329–368). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunter, R. D. (1999). Officer opinions on police misconduct. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Son, I. S., & Rome, D. M. (2004). The prevalence and visibility of police misconduct: A survey of citizens and police officers. Police Quarterly, 7(2), 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris, C. J. (2009). Police use of improper force: a systematic review of the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 4(25), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taipei City Integrity Office. (2016). Reporting avenues. Retrieved May 20, 2016 from http://doge.gov.taipei/ct.asp?xItem=70530&CtNode=15489&mp=121021.
  22. 22.
    Eastern Survey Center. (2001). Public Satisfaction with Police Work: A Survey Report. Taipei: Eastern Survey Center.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jou, S., Sun, I., Hou, C. (2011). A study of police images and public satisfaction with law and order. Grant report submitted to Taiwan Ministry of the Interior.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, H. L. (2009). Ethical issues among Taiwanese police: an analysis of integrity violations listed on National Police Agency Handbook from 2005 to 2008. Master’s thesis. Public Administration Management Graduate School.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chu, C. (2004). Police Misconduct Case Study. In Master’s thesis. Taoyuan: Central Police University.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wong, H. (2014). Keelong police corruption. CAN. Retrieved May 10, 2016 from http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201402200027-1.aspx.
  27. 27.
    Sisk, D. E. (1982). Police corruption and criminal monopoly: victimless crimes. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11(2), 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Syed, T. (1997). Not victimless: understanding the harmful effects of police corruption. Servamus, 91(1). Retrieved June 8, 2016 from http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php/publications/1485-not-victimless-understanding-the-harmful-effects-of-police-corruption.html.
  29. 29.
    Huberts, L. W. J. C., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.E21 3020 Department of SociologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacau

Personalised recommendations