Abstract
Abstract
Fairness in policing, driven by the effective and transparent investigation and remediation of police misconduct, is vital to maintaining the legitimacy of policing agencies, and the capacity for police to function within society. Research into police misconduct in Australia has traditionally been performed on an ad-hoc basis, with limited access to law enforcement data. This research seeks to identify the antecedents of serious police misconduct, resulting in the dismissal or criminal charge of officers, among a large police misconduct dataset. Demographic and misconduct data were sourced for a sample of 600 officers who have committed instances of serious misconduct, and a matched sample of 600 comparison officers across a 13-year period. A machine learning analysis, random forest, was utilised to produce a robust predictive model, with Partial Dependence Plots employed to demonstrate within variable interaction with serious misconduct. Prior instances of serious misconduct were particularly predictive of further serious misconduct, while misconduct was most prominent around mid-career. Secondary employment, and performance issues were important predictors, while demographic variables typically outperformed complaint variables. This research suggests that serious misconduct is similarly prevalent among experienced officers, as it is junior officers, while secondary employment is an important indicator of misconduct risk. Findings provide guidance for misconduct prevention policy among policing agencies.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Urban Studies,Cultural Studies,Safety Research
Reference65 articles.
1. Alston, R. E. (2010). The relationship between police occupational deviance and length of service in a large police agency (Unpublished doctoral thesis). MN: Walden University.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Socio-Economic indexes for Areas (SEIFA). In Statistics (ed). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics
3. Baker, D. (2009). Police confirmation of use of force in Australia: “To be or not to be?” Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(2), 139–158.
4. Barnes, G. C., & Hyatt, J. M. (2012). Classifying adult probationers by forecasting future offending. Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
5. Bazley, T. D., Mieczkowski, T., & Lersch, K. M. (2009). Early intervention program criteria: evaluating officer use of force. Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 107–124.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献