A Few Bad Apples
By Albert B. Kelly
I’ve known many police officers over the course of my life and with few exceptions; they have been upstanding individuals. One I know and respect has often commented to me that he takes a bad cop as an affront if for no other reason, than the fact that a bad cop reflects on the uniform he has worn his entire career and that is something he does not take lightly or casually. He takes it personally.
For the most part, it has been my sense that many officers feel this same way- meaning they do not want their reputations and credibility soiled by a bad cop who abuses power, is dishonest, mean, corrupt, or just plain crazy. Having a bad cop makes the good cops’ job that much harder and in some cases actually endangers their well-being and safety.
I mention this because if I am correct about the “few bad apples” theory, then it should be a relatively straight-forward thing to eliminate bad policing. The vast majority of us are comfortable with the “few bad apples” theory because it provides a convenient and quick way to explain what we can no longer avoid or justify on those videos. This theory also lets us categorize the majority of officers as good and upstanding.
Let me say up front that I could easily go along with the “few bad apples” theory and I mostly do. But I also know that if we’re not careful, “a few bad apples” becomes simply the price of doing business, yet when the bad apple comes equipped with a gun, badge, and the power of the state behind them, they simply cannot be allowed to continue as the price of doing business no matter how much some may want it to be so.
I understand the appeal though. For example, I’ve heard some argue that the criminal justice system gets things right most of the time, so what if ten percent of the people we incarcerate are innocent- it’s just the price of doing business they say.
I’ve also heard that way of thinking associated with our use of drones in Afghanistan and Iraq- we always try and just hit the specific bad guy we’re going after while trying to avoid innocent civilians, but if we take out a family of five nearby, including children, we say it’s tragic but we accept the loss as the price of doing business. Acceptable losses might be fine if we’re talking about merchandise and shoplifters and damaged inventory for a retailer, but not so much when we’re talking about people’s lives.
On a side note, when it comes to people, just like with cops, we might do well to extend the “few bad apples” theory to a variety of groups beyond just police because I suspect that it’s been this unwillingness to do so that accounts for systemic racism.
There’s no reporting or tracking in place such that bad cops are able to move from department to department the same way pedophile priests were shuffled from parish to parish. Maybe it is time to change things so there is no longer an incentive to keep silent and just move the problem from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
It is also worth asking what role unions play in this discussion. I see value in unions and agree that there need to be certain protections in place, but that protection should have some limits, however few those limits might be. If it’s all about blind loyalty, then you have to question if the ‘few bad apples” theory still holds.
Another consideration should be bad cops carrying malpractice insurance. I say that because even if we’re going with the “few bad apples” theory, it can be costly for all taxpayers as cities pay settlements and lawsuits for those few bad apples. Meet a certain criteria, and you have to cover your own action.
As someone once said, “one bad apple spoils the barrel.”