Cj340 Week 4 Essay

Unit 4 Essay

James Clark

CJ340: Applied Criminal Justice Ethics

May 18, 2016

This paper is divided into two sections with the first section explaining the slippery slope hypothesis and its’ relationship gratuities. The second section discusses the three theories regarding public corruption: society-at-large, structural or affiliation, and rotten apple hypotheses and how these three hypotheses all tie into the slippery slope argument.

The most common argument for the "no gratuity" policy is the slippery slope argument. As Detective Petrocelli states, the “slippery slope argument” is the acceptance of even the smallest benefit will start an inevitable slide toward serious corruption (Petrocelli, 2006). Could the act of accepting a free soda, hot dog, or coffee lead an officer to taking money in exchange for letting an offender out of a ticket or even worse preventing them from being arrested for committing a crime? That answer to that question depends on the store owner or offender and their intentions behind it. The store owner may have their own policy for their employees to not charge law enforcement members and service members for their beverages.

“The act of businesses providing discounts and/or free consumables such as coffee, sodas and (rarely to the best of my knowledge) snacks, is a practice as old as the law enforcement profession in America (Borelli, 2012).” In his article, Frank Bocelli gives an example of a police chief that had prohibited his officers from accepting any discount or gifted item from any community member to include all the businesses there in. It wasn’t until some of his officers were investigated and disciplined for accepting hot dogs from the Boy Scouts at a local community event. The Boy Scouts offered the hot dogs, at no charge, it was the end of the day; the hot dogs weren't going to be sold. The officers saw no harm and simply couldn't imagine that the Chief would jam them up for eating what would have been thrown away...