Corruption is a universal social phenomenon that exists in any culture and grows in any type of society. Many countries declare to have eliminated corruption. By the same token lots of people think that corruption can only grow in governmental societies or post-communist countries where every single matter is controlled by the corrupt federal government. Despite the fact that such a belief is popular, the truth does not support such an argument. Corruption is all-pervasive and can not be removed totally and irrevocably. It exists everywhere in every stratum of society. However, the majority of people associate corruption with the government, police, legal system and other entities that are somehow related to the control and allocation of public resources. The authorities are among such public authorities that are responsible for keeping order and justice in a society. A police department is really similar to other governmental bodies such as a court of law, or taxation service, etc. It is a typical belief that such companies tend to be corruption-ridden for one easy factor. All theses public structures get and disperse the tax-payers’ money, in other words there is no individual absolutely thinking about managing the circulation of funds like in a huge corporation. A privately owned service is extremely various in terms of its ownership structure. There is a specific plainly defined group of people who own the business. It would be reasonable to assume that they are quite thinking about controlling the monetary resources they bought the business. Hence, there is a clear reward to control the circulation of resources in that kind of organization. A public company that is not owned by any private entity is extremely various. It is extremely similar to a communist country where there is no clear line of command and responsibility. Even though the structure of the company such as a cops department creates beneficial soil for corruption to flourish, the society needs to devise plainly laid out strategies in order to tackle this social vice that is definitely responsible for producing losses for the society and weakening the notion of justice, order, social equality and democracy.
To begin with it is essential to recognize the nature of corruption in general terms. Corruption seems to be inherent to any social structure. Also, it seems to be inherent to human nature given that the cultural or social setting does not exert any impact on the possibility for corruption to flourish. Corruption exists in democratic nations like the United States of America or European countries. By the same token, corruption exists in post-communist societies and countries such as Indonesia, or Colombia. The similar thing among all those nations is that corruption is not restrained by geographical, political or cultural boundaries. However, the distinction amongst the aforementioned societies depends on the level of corruption that an offered society wants to tolerate. It is no secret that nations like Indonesia are essentially ridden with corruption. A foreign entrepreneur can not open a shop without paying allurements to city government authorities for taking care of the documents and the regional authorities for so-called security services. In case our fictional businessman declines to pay the authorities, his brand new store is very likely burn to the ground the really next day. For that reason, cultural and social aspects virtually specify the role of corruption in a given social organization.
Corruption as a social phenomenon is especially salient in organizations like the cops. The factor police are so vulnerable and exposed to corruption is because of the company structure of a police department. To illustrate, a police department does not produce any income and there is no private owner. The authorities are completely funded by the government. The government officials estimate the amount of funds that would spent by the police and create a budget based upon those price quotes. Therefore, a police department is a consumer of tax-payers money instead of a factor to the state’s budget plan. The people who work in the police are just encouraged by monetary incentives that come from the government in a form of wages. People who stand on the various levels in the organizational ladder get a very similar kind of monetary incentive. Thus, the head of an authorities department is just motivated by the income that the federal government sets forth in exchange for the service. There is typically no extra inspiration resulting from better and more thorough work. For that reason, if you work in the cops it generally does not matter how difficult and how diligently you work, due to the fact that the income is seldom affected by that quality of work factor. For that reason, low salaries and the absence of external motivation contribute to the spread of corruption. Police officers are encouraged to accept kickbacks in exchange for more lenient treatment. Criminals who pay off the police are likewise better off eventually, since that way they escape punishment that they would need to accept otherwise. There is a clear mutual gain that is created as a result of such a relationship. Nevertheless, there is a clear expense that offsets the gain obtained by the 2 celebrations as a result of such a deal. The expense is associated with the credibility and significance of the law that is weakened and ultimately annihilated by corruption. The state can not exist without the law and justice; as soon as those two components are dismissed the society develops into a disorderly crowd. Therefore, it is the government’s duty to control the level of corruption and make the authorities render a service to the society.
Undoubtedly, there are two concerns that should be addressed in order to manage corruption among law enforcement officer. The very first important element is legal constraints and guidelines that must be developed particularly to prevent the police from participating in any of such deals with wrongdoers. There need to be an anti-corruption department the task of which is to observe the operations of the police officers. This anti-corruption department ought to enforce the government’s policies concerning corruption. Those policies should be really stringent and clear in determining the proper penalty for the law enforcement officer spreading out corruption. The disciplinary actions may range from fines to expulsion from the authorities, although some other punishment may be considered suitable depending upon the scenario. The bottom-line is that punishment needs to be clear and stringent, so that people know the prospective serious consequences that such behavior can result in. That is a standard strategy that should be executed in practically every cops department. Although such a program might turn quite costly for the federal government, the outcome that it can potentially yield is apparent. The members of anti-corruption committee need to be paid handsomely so that there is no sense for them to participate in corruption. Another strategy to manage corruption is to increase the salaries of all police officers hence supplying them with extra inspiration. As it can be seen, all these techniques include capital expenditures, and it is quite clear that corruption can not be eradicated. The bottom-line is to control it at a particular acceptable level where the possible harm that corruption can do to a society is low.