In their interactions with citizens, police officers are prohibited from (1) using unnecessary Force, (2) Abusing their authority, (3) speaking Discourteously, or (4) using Offensive language, all captured by the acronym FADO. However, acts of police misconduct are complex social phenomena that involve both following legal guidelines and responding to extralegal or mitigating circumstances. Using a factorial survey of police-civilian interactions that introduce various dimensions of FADO and surrounding circumstances, respondents are asked to rate from zero to ten the seriousness of police misconduct in an encounter. Findings show that respondents' judgments of the seriousness of misconduct consider both legal and extralegal dimensions. On the legal side of the ledger, officers' unnecessary use of force and use of offensive language significantly increase judgments of serious misconduct; on the extralegal side of the ledger, civilians' confrontational demeanor significantly reduces judgments of serious misconduct. The findings suggest that citizens expect officers to behave professionally, or by the book, but with a recognition that ''streetlevel'' discretion has a place in an officer's toolkit. Citizens' expectations that street-level discretion has its place is also demonstrated by findings for the dimension abuse of authority: Abuse or threatening behavior by officers is not a significant predictor of serious police misconduct. In addition, characteristics of the respondents explain propensities to observe different degrees of police misconduct. Controlling for the social status, political orientation, and prior experience of respondents with the police, we find that (1) blacks rate police misconduct significantly higher than their white counterparts, and (2) liberals rate police misconduct significantly higher than their conservative counterparts. Differences in judgments by blacks and whites and by liberals and conservatives concerning judgments of police misconduct have important implications for the legitimacy of police authority.

In their dealings with citizens, police in most jurisdictions across the country are prohibited from using unnecessary force, abusing their authority, discourteous behavior, and offensive language. This study examines the factors that contribute to citizens' judgments of fair punishment for police misconduct. Using a factorial survey, citizens are asked to judge vignettes of police misconduct that describe encounters between officers and civilians in detail. The findings show that citizens do weigh the officer's behavior, particularly the unnecessary use of force, and mitigating evidence, particularly the degree to which the civilian is injured. Also, the findings show that respondents' social status, including their race, does not explain ratings, but that respondents' political orientation, that is, liberal versus conservative orientation, does make a significant difference. The findings demonstrate a normative consensus among respondents about the factors to weigh in judging a fair punishment for police misconduct as well as a consensus about the relative severity of appropriate punishment. There is some disagreement among citizens, however, about how to translate judgments of relative severity into a specific punishment for a particular case.

No abstract

No abstract