Editor’s Note: In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. This week’s essay comes from PoliceOne Member member Neal Trautman, who is the director of the National Institute of Ethics. Trautman has chaired both the IACP Ethics Training and Police Ethics and Image committees. Do you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members? Send us an e-mail with your story.
By Neal Trautman
Director, National Institute of Ethics
With the exception of legal cases, relatively little has been written about lying and law enforcement. Virtually no quantifiable data has been produced from research on the topic. In my opinion, the utmost authority on the subject is Sissela Bok. Bok’s books — entitled Lying, (1978) and Secrets, (1991) — have become the source that most people use when the issue arises.
Bok states that people have many reasons for lying. Some do it to avoid hurting the feelings of another, while others are merely trying to impress someone or don’t want to appear ignorant.
She has also categorized lies into two conceptual domains: those intended to deceive and those of abstract truth or falsity. This is an article about cops who lie with the intention to deceive or mislead.
The primary means that a liar uses to convey the dishonest message is generally irrelevant. The intent and specific techniques on the other hand, are important. People who lie will use “filters” to manipulate and fool others and even themselves, according to Bok. Filters comprise a wide assortment of variations of the lie. Common examples are distorting the facts to look good, twisting the truth to tell someone what they want to hear, or playing on the prejudice of a person. They alter the way both the sender and receiver experience the lie. Liars can also use filters like telling themselves that what they are saying isn’t really hurting anyone or intentionally replacing the facts with a new, self-serving version because it is emotionally painful to admit the truth. It is very probable that officers who lie in an official way do this, rather than acknowledge to themselves that they have betrayed their profession and organization.
The Cost of Broken Trust
When citizens no longer trust their law enforcement agency or the employees in a police department cannot trust each other, the organization for all practical purposes ceases to have effective social relations and interaction. If employees or the public can’t trust officers because they have developed a reputation as liars, confidence, trust and the ability to carry out even the most basic responsibilities is lost. Veracity is crucial for any type of personal or professional relationship. Trust is the atmosphere in which veracity thrives. When trust within is lost due to lies and deceit, the organization or those who lead it, will usually self-destruct.
It is both ironic and important to emphasize that even though the vast numbers of officers in America are decent, honest, honorable individuals, most will not come forward to tell the truth about the few that are disgracing them and their badge. In fact, some risk being fired and throw away their self-respect to lie for a corrupt officer.
The face of police corruption has changed in several ways throughout the last few decades. What officers now lie about has now evolved into something much more sinister.
In the past, law enforcement scandals typically involved officers taking pay offs so that those committing crimes could continue to do so. Today’s corrupt cop has eliminated the criminal so he can make more money. In other words, corrupt cops of today are often the one selling the drugs, doing the robberies or committing the burglaries. Much more is often at stake when the lie is told.
The incredible amounts of money that can be made — quite literally, overnight — by a corrupt cop has resulted in more serious police corruption. Today’s police scandals have a couple important traits in common. First, the code of silence usually disguised the crimes for years. Second, exposure of the scandal usually originates from someone outside the organization.
While it is vital to understand the causes and dynamics of cops who lie, of more importance is what can be done to reduce the frequency and severity of lies. Lt. Josh Phillips of the North Carolina Justice Academy once told me about an experience that demonstrates how supervisors have the potential to prevent officers from lying. He had a conversation with a newly promoted sergeant who admitted that as a young patrol officer he was confronted in a department hallway about a minor indiscretion and he immediately denied it. He then was asked to write “the statement,” and as he agonized over the statement he wanted to tell the truth but didn’t.
Ultimately, the officer was suspended for the lie, when the original accusation wouldn’t have resulted in any time off. He recognizes that he is responsible for the lie but now believes that if his sergeant had just spent some time with him, in private, he probably would have told the truth.
An Environment of Truth Telling
It seems, then, that the key to establishing the truth early on in internal investigations falls heavily on the first-line supervisor. If the accused officer trusts the sergeant, and if the sergeant does what he/she can to create an environment conducive to truth telling, then more truth telling will be the result. Some key ingredients for creating this type of environment are:
• Trust: communicating to the officer both in voice, words, and body language that none of us are above making mistakes. That the supervisor is not out to “hang” the officer or to make more out of the incident than it is.
• Clarity: it should be clear to the officer that while there is no desire on the part of the supervisor to make more out of the incident than it is, the issue must be resolved. In other words, it is not going to go away based on a quick denial.
• Atmosphere: the supervisor should, as much as is in their power, strive to create an atmosphere that lends itself to openness and honesty. Considerations should include privacy, lack of distractions and interruptions, and time. In other words, an environment in which the supervisor would be comfortable with if he were in the same situation.
• Obstacles: the supervisor should minimize any obstacles to the officers being candid. Opening phrases such as “you really didn’t do this did you?” or “did you really...” should be avoided.
And if all of this is not enough to stop an officer from lying, be very blunt. Look him or her in the eyes and say “You lie and we will fire you. Do you understand that?”
About the Author
Neal Trautman is the director of the National Institute of Ethics. He has authored 12 books, instructed over 700 ethics leadership seminars and given over 90 conferences presentations. He also teaches anti-corruption seminars to foreign Government officials for the US Department of State. Neal has chaired both the IACP Ethics Training and Police Ethics and Image committees. He can be reached at nealtrautman@cableone.net.