The relationship between self-control and police misconduct is a complex and sensitive topic, with significant implications for police training, accountability, and community relations. In 2016, Donner, Fridell, and Jennings published a study that shed light on this critical issue, utilizing the framework of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime:

This influential theory posits that low self-control is the primary cause of criminal behavior. Individuals with low self-control prioritize immediate gratification over long-term consequences, leading them to engage in impulsive, risk-taking actions, including crime. The theory outlines various dimensions of low self-control, including:

• Impulsivity: The tendency to act without considering the potential consequences.
• Preference for immediate rewards: Prioritizing short-term gains over long-term benefits.
• Weak self-efficacy: Difficulty delaying gratification and persisting in the face of challenges.
• Low tolerance for frustration: Inability to handle disappointment or setbacks.

Applying the Theory to Police Misconduct:

Donner, Fridell, and Jennings (2016) proposed that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of crime could be applied to understand police misconduct. They argued that officers with low self-control might be more likely to engage in inappropriate or illegal behavior, such as:

• Excessive force: Using unnecessary force during arrests or confrontations.
• Unlawful searches and seizures: Conducting searches or seizing property without legal justification.
• Verbal abuse and harassment: Engaging in discriminatory or disrespectful behavior towards citizens.
• Corruption: Accepting bribes or engaging in other illegal activities for personal gain.

The Donner, Fridell, and Jennings (2016) Study:

To test their hypothesis, the researchers conducted a study with 101 first-line police supervisors from several agencies. They measured both self-control and police misconduct using validated questionnaires and official records of past misconduct complaints. The study employed two measures of self-control:

• Gottfredson and Hirschi’s original conceptualization: This measured impulsive tendencies, risk-taking, and preference for immediate rewards.
• Hirschi’s revised self-control scale: This focused on emotional dysregulation and difficulty controlling aggression.

Key Findings:

The study revealed a significant positive correlation between both self-control measures and police misconduct. Officers with lower self-control scores were more likely to have a history of misconduct complaints and self-reported engagement in future misconduct. This finding supports the contention that low self-control is a risk factor for police misconduct.

Strengths of the Study:

• Focus on first-line supervisors: Studying supervisors allowed for access to both self-reported misconduct and information about subordinates’ conduct.
• Use of multiple self-control measures: Employing two different scales strengthened the validity of the findings.
• Consideration of both past and future misconduct: The study included both historical data and self-reported predictions of future behavior.

Limitations of the Study:

• Self-reported data: Both self-control and misconduct were measured through questionnaires, which are susceptible to bias and underreporting.
• Limited sample size: The study focused on a relatively small sample, potentially limiting generalizability.
• Cross-sectional design: The study only established a correlation, not a causal relationship, between self-control and misconduct.

Implications for Police Practice:

The findings of the Donner, Fridell, and Jennings (2016) study, while preliminary, hold significant implications for police practice:

• Recruitment and screening: Assessing self-control during police recruitment could potentially identify individuals at higher risk for misconduct.
• Training: Incorporating self-control development techniques into police training programs could equip officers with better coping mechanisms and decision-making skills.
• Internal accountability: Identifying and addressing officers with low self-control scores through targeted interventions and support programs could create a more ethical and accountable police force.

Conclusion:

The Donner, Fridell, and Jennings (2016) study provides valuable insight into the potential link between low self-control and police misconduct. While further research is needed to fully understand this complex relationship, the findings suggest that self-control could be a crucial factor in predicting and preventing police misconduct, ultimately contributing to improved police-community relations and public trust.

It is important to note that this discussion is based on a single study and should not be interpreted as definitive proof of a causal link between self-control and police misconduct. Further research, employing diverse methodologies and larger samples, is required to definitively establish such a connection.