Goldbricking In Policing Essay

The behavior of police officers is governed by a number of sources, including state and federal laws, departmental policies, code of conducts, social norms, and personal beliefs. According to Swope (2001), “an officer's behavior is influenced more directly by the actions or lack of actions in response to ethical shortcomings of his superiors than by the stated directives or written ethical code of an organization.” Every citizen expects the police officers to uphold the laws, and perform their duties honestly, impartially, and fairly. However, there are a few police officers fail to fulfill their duties because they have no clear-cut choices of sources for guidance in making their decisions. Consequently, they engage in deviance when they
There are four postulates that related directly to the problem of goldbricking: “(1) be aggressive when you have to, but don’t be too eager; (2) don’t get involved in anything in another’s cop sector; (3) hold up your end of the work; (4) don’t leave work for the next tour” (2008: 394, Reuss-Ianni, 1983). Goldbricking is considered deviant behavior because it is direct conflict with the work ethics that officers adopt a proactive approach to policing and continually seek out activities to be performed. Goldbricking can occur in many forms. Some of the examples include officers ignore calls for services, engage in personal business while on duty, overlook suspicious activities or violations, sleeping on duty, and any number of other activities. The invention of portable radios has made it easy for officers to engage in personal activity while on duty because officers are no longer restricted to the patrol vehicle. They can go shopping or goof off while still remaining in contact with the dispatcher (2008:396). Goldbricking can affect police officer’s promotion. For example, when an officer has continuously engaged in goldbricking, he can receive disciplinary action, and his promotion opportunity will be taken