Police integrity in South Korea

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the contours of police integrity among Korean police officers a decade after police reform was started.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected in 2009 at the Korean National Police University (KNPU) and the Police Comprehensive Academy (PCA). The questionnaires distributed to police officers contained 14 vignettes describing various forms of police misconduct. The sample consists of 329 police officers, mostly non‐supervisors, attending courses at the KNPU and PCA.FindingsResults indicate that the contours of police integrity vary across different forms of misconduct. Regardless of whether the respondents' views were measured through questions about misconduct seriousness, appropriate discipline, willingness to report, or knowledge about official rules, the findings suggest that Korean police officers perceived corruption as a serious form of police misconduct, while they considered the use of excessive force to be substantially less serious. In addition, a strong code of silence among the police was detected.Research limitations/implicationsThe study examines the contours of police integrity among a convenience sample of police officers from South Korea.Practical implicationsThe Korean police administrators interested in controlling police misconduct could utilize this methodology to explore the contours of the code of silence among the Korean police. The results of the study indicate that substantial focus should be put on changing police officer views about the use of excessive force and narrowing the code of silence in general.Social implicationsThe results show that the contours of police integrity among South Korean police officers clearly reflect the attitudes and views of the society at large toward corruption and use of excessive force. The lenient attitudes that South Korean police officers have expressed regarding the use of excessive force reflect both the historical attitudes and the lack of clarity of official rules. The strong code of silence is related to the insufficient protection for whistleblowers and the adherence to Confucianism among Korean citizens.Originality/valuePrior research predominantly measured police integrity as the opposite of police corruption in Western democracies and East European countries in transition. This research expands this by focusing on different forms of police misconduct. In addition, it explores integrity in an Asian democracy with the police agency undergoing extensive reform.

The code of silence: Revisiting South African police integrity

“…This questionnaire has already been used in countries as diverse as the United States, 45 Croatia 46 and South Korea. 47 In its present, enhanced form the second Most respondents were assigned to detective/investigative units (33,5%), patrol (26,3%), or community policing (COP) (11,9%). About 43% were constables, 8% sergeants, 21% warrant officers, 2% lieutenants, 16% captains, and 8% had a higher rank.…”

Police integrity in China

“…The third dimension of police integrity theory concerns the ability of police agencies in addressing the code of silence . Per this theory, although the police code of silence exists in all police agencies officers working in police departments with a high level of code of silence are less likely to report other officers' misconduct (Kutnjak Ivković and Kang, 2012). With respect to research on Chinese policing, there is a lack of studies examining the code of silence among Chinese police officers, which does not allow us to see whether the code of silence influences or exists within the Chinese police service.…”

Detention or diversion? The influence of training and education on school police officer discretion

“…One approach involves randomly varying different characteristics of the vignettes to evaluate the influence of these different characteristics on participant responses (Applegate et al, 1996;Cochran et al, 2003;Rossi and Anderson, 1982). Another approach is to keep each vignette static so that every study participant reads the same scenarios, and variation between responses of the different characteristics of the participants is evaluated (Klockars et al, 2004;Kutnjak Ivkovic and Kang, 2012;. The primary goal of the present study is to evaluate how different types of respondents (NASRO trained officers vs untrained officers) respond to the same scenario, so the second approach is the approach used in the present study.…”