This article was downloaded by: [Griffith University]On: 12 December 2013, At: 21:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Criminal Justice EthicsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcre20

Updating International LawEnforcement Ethics: InternationalCodes of ConductTyler Cawthray, Tim Prenzler & Louise E. PorterPublished online: 04 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Tyler Cawthray, Tim Prenzler & Louise E. Porter (2013) Updating InternationalLaw Enforcement Ethics: International Codes of Conduct, Criminal Justice Ethics, 32:3, 187-209,DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2013.860728

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2013.860728

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLE

Updating International LawEnforcement Ethics: International

Codes of Conduct

TYLER CAWTHRAY, TIM PRENZLER, ANDLOUISE E. PORTER*

For any profession, establishing codes of ethics that are both practically relevant and up todate is an ongoing challenge. Law enforcement is no exception to this as agencies are facedwith an evolving modern environment. With changes in technology, types of policing, andsources of societal conflict there is a potential array of new or evolving ethical considerationsthat confront the profession. Attempts to distill and prescribe law enforcement ethics at theinternational level have resulted in the creation of the “Law Enforcement Code of Conduct”of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the “Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials” of the United Nations (U.N.). However, both these codes werecreated decades ago, so they do not cover some of the more contemporary ethical issues thathave arisen. This article compares the content of the IACP and UN codes and identifies arange of ethical issues either absent or insufficiently addressed. Normative themes andissues are organized around the following topics: difficulties in applying the codes, humanrights and the use of force, misconduct and integrity, and enforcement and accountability.

Keywords: police, misconduct, ethics,codes of conduct, law enforcement,international

Background

Changes in Modern PolicingThe institution of law enforcement isundergoing significant change withina dynamic operating environment.Policing agencies are undergoing thedual processes of both multilateraliza-tion and internationalization. The tra-ditional role of the state as the primary

*Tyler Cawthray (corresponding author) isa Researcher at the Australian ResearchCouncil Centre of Excellence in Policingand Security (CEPS), Griffith University,Mt Gravatt Qld, Australia. Email:tylerlawrence.cawthray@griffithuni.edu.au. Tim Prenzler is a Chief Investigator atthe Australian Research Council Centre ofExcellence in Policing and Security(CEPS). Email: t.prenzler@griffith.edu.au.Louise Porter is a Research Fellow at theAustralian Research Council Centre ofExcellence in Policing and Security(CEPS). Email: l.porter@griffith.edu.au.

Criminal Justice Ethics, 2013Vol. 32, No. 3, 187–209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2013.860728

© 2013 John Jay College of Criminal Justice of The City University of New York

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

provider of security has changed, withits agencies now representing only oneavenue for both the supply of securityand its consumption.1 Within states, amultilateral policing environment hasemerged, including providers such asprivate security companies, vigilantes,and neighborhood watch, as well asconsumers including corporations, res-idential communities, individuals, andthe state itself.2 At the global level, thetrend towards internationalization hasexpanded the range of cooperative lawenforcement arrangements, from thelong-established Interpol to the morerecent Europol, alongside a host ofbilateral police cooperation arrange-ments.3 These changes in the securityenvironment have been in response tothe evolving nature of many securityconcerns. At the global level theseinclude the internationalization oforganized crime and terrorism; whileat the local level these concerns arediverse, including recognition of therising fear of crime and the accumula-tion of mass private property, whichhas increased the desire for corpora-tized policing.4 Given the likely con-tinuation of the diversification of bothsecurity threats and nodes, this pre-sents public law enforcement with anew environment.

The tools, methods, and institu-tional interactions of public lawenforcement are changing to meetthe challenges this environment hascreated. As these changes take placeit is important that both the oppor-tunities for cooperation and the eth-ical dilemmas that are created areadequately managed. This new envir-onment has spawned a range of newethical challenges for police acrossthe globe. The modern law enforce-ment environment now presents offi-cials with an even greater range ofsituations in which officials may

engage in ethically questionable con-duct, whether by accident or intent.Deviant conduct has been a long-standing issue for law enforcementagencies and it is essential that inter-national ethical regulations are cur-rent and relevant. The focus of thisarticle addresses this need by advoc-ating the reform of the pre-eminentinternational law enforcement codesof conduct published by the UnitedNations (U.N.) and the InternationalAssociation of the Chiefs of Police(IACP). These reforms are drawnfrom current ethical issues outlinedin scholarly literature and illustratedin the codes themselves.

The Ongoing Problem: LawEnforcement DevianceCorruption and deviant behavior arenot unique to law enforcement offi-cials, but the powers vested in theirposition expose them to a range ofspecial opportunities to engage indiverse forms of misconduct. Lawenforcement in many countries hasbeen subject to numerous investiga-tions and commissions that haveuncovered significant levels of cor-ruption.5 The periodic cycle of scan-dals indicates that, despite the effortsof commissions, internal investiga-tions, and oversight agencies, aber-rant behavior remains an ongoingchallenge even within establisheddemocracies. In other states that lacksuch accountability measures, devi-ant behavior may remain completelyunchecked.

Law enforcement deviance is notrestricted to the developed world, buthas been widely documented indeveloping countries where, in somecases, corrupt practices have becomesystemic. This has established a sig-nificant need for police reform.6 Law

T. Cawthray et al.

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

enforcement corruption can take onvarious forms including classic cor-ruption (where officers misuse theirposition for personal gain); processcorruption (where police may tamperwith evidence); excessive force; gen-eral unprofessional conduct; internalcorruption, including discriminationor favoritism; and unprofessionalconduct when off duty.7 Corruptionscandals are often seized upon by themedia and become highly publicized,thus potentially damaging an agency’spublic image.8

In response to the ongoing chal-lenges to law enforcement integrity,a range of measures have beenimplemented by governments tocombat aberrant behavior, suchas independent civilian oversight,decriminalizing vice, and providingethics training.9 One measure thatplays a part in ethics training hasbeen the creation of law enforcementcodes of conduct. Codes of conductfor law enforcement arose as part ofa professionalization trend withinpolicing in the twentieth century,and they have come to play animportant role in making clear whatstandard of behavior is expectedof law enforcement personnel.10

Self-regulating behavior throughestablishing codes of conduct is anintegral part of the professionaliza-tion process for any profession,including the police.11 It is also asso-ciated with desires for greater account-ability through the establishment ofrule-based behavior norms that echodemocratic ideals.12 The first majorpolice professionalization initiativeswere undertaken in the United King-dom and theUnited States, both demo-cratic states.13 In these states, prior toprofessionalization, police operatedin similar ways to some of the non-democratic state security services that

operate today—that is, with a greatdeal of discretion at both the agencyand individual level, as well as limitedaccountability fortheir actions. Through identifying andsetting behavioral standards, lawenforcement codes of ethics have be-come an important tool in identifyingand punishing deviant behavior, aswell as ensuring that citizens’ rightsare protected.14 At the internationallevel they can help establish interna-tional professional policing normsthat can guide states in the establish-ment of their own codes of conductand encourage ethically regulatedpolice behavior.

The Purpose of Law EnforcementCodes of ConductLaw enforcement personnel are theexecutive agents of the legal systemand are expected to both enforce anduphold the law. Across differentnational jurisdictions, specific lawhas been developed to outline thelimits of police powers. Criminal lawhas also been formed to cover a broadrange of offenses across the whole ofsociety.15 The need for general applic-ability of criminal law means thatwhen applied to highly specific orunique situations, such as the con-duct of police or other professionals,the results may not reflect theseverity of their deviance within thecontext of their profession.16 Profes-sionals, due to their specializations,are often far better placed to providepractical and applicable standards ofbehavior for themselves.17

Consequently, law enforcementcodes of ethics promulgate core eth-ical guidelines that can be built intopolice training and disciplinary pro-cesses. These provide clarity to bothpolice officers and their superiors

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

about what behavior is appropriategiven particular ethical predicaments.18

This means that police codes need tobe more than just ideals and mustserve as practical guidelines that com-prehensively cover as many areas ofethical concern as possible.19

Generally, professional codes seekto foster trust through a commitment toexcellence. This is particularly import-ant to policing, as the public dem-ands assurances from law enforcementagencies because of the substantialpower that has been vested in them.20

At the international level, the desirefor universal police ethics has mani-fested through the creation of two keycodes, the IACP “Law EnforcementCode of Conduct” (2009) and theU.N. “Code of Conduct for LawEnforcement Officials” (1979). Each ofthese codes has covered a range ofimportant ethical issues that face lawenforcement, yet changes in the mod-ern policing environment means theydo not meet all the current ethicalneeds of law enforcement.

The Development of International Law Enforcement Codes ofConduct

History of the IACP’s LawEnforcement Code of ConductThe 2009 Law Enforcement Code ofConduct is the most recent concep-tualization of law enforcement ethicsby the IACP. The origins of thepresent code can be traced back tothe IACP’s “Canons of Police Ethics,”which was the first major initiative toconstruct an international “code ofconduct” for law enforcement. Thecanons were originally developed bythe California Peace Officers Associ-ation (CPOA) in 1955 as part of aprogram to enhance the professionalstatus of policing.21 After examiningthese canons, the IACP adopted theCanons of Police Ethics in 1957 with-out significant changes.22 The codethat was adopted by the IACPclearly showed the influence of U.S.law enforcement. Article one in thecanons provides evidence of this:

The primary responsibility of the policeservice, and of the individual officer, is the

protection of people of the United Statesthrough the upholding of laws. Chief amongthese laws is the Constitution of the UnitedStates and its Amendments.23

The “spirit” of the document focuseson several key themes that includethe following: impartial law enforce-ment; protecting the U.S. systemof government; officers that bothenforce and follow the law; respectfor citizen rights; and avoidance ofthe use of force.24 Also within thecanons, officers are expected to con-duct themselves equitably and pro-fessionally in their role as publicservants, and morally in their privatelives.25 Overall, the canons emphas-ize that police officers are bound toact impartially within the limits of thelaw.26 While the Canons of PoliceEthics has a distinctly American char-acter, many of its principles are in factcarried over to the 1991/2009 LawEnforcement Code of Conduct asuniversal ethical principles.

T. Cawthray et al.

190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

History of the U.N.’s Code ofConduct for Law EnforcementOfficialsThe U.N.’s Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials was ado-pted in 1979 by the U.N. GeneralAssembly over two decades after theoriginal IACP code was first pub-lished.27 The code had its origins indiscussions that began over a decadeearlier when the U.N. conducteda conference titled “The UnitedNations Seminar on the Role of Policein the Protection of Human Rights”in Canberra, Australia, in 1963.28

The seminar was not focused on thedevelopment of a “code,” but thediscussion between Australian andU.N. officials of the time is acknowl-edged as perhaps the first steptowards its development.29 Formal

requests for the creation of a code,however, did not occur until 1973, bythe Economic and Social Council, andin 1974, by the General Assembly.30 Itwas not until 1975 that the SecretaryGeneral convened an internationalworking group including global lawenforcement specialists to develop adraft code.31 A number of key orga-nizations contributed to the develop-ment of the draft, including the PoliceFoundation, Interpol, and the IACP.32

Finally, on 17 December 1979, theCode of Conduct for Law Enforce-ment Officials was officially adoptedby the U.N. General Assembly as anon-binding declaration.33 Overall,the development process involvedsignificant consultation with widerlaw enforcement experts, thus lend-ing support to the code’s professionaland international credentials.

Content of the Codes

IACP Law Enforcement Code ofConductIn 1991 the IACP produced thenewly named “Police Code of Con-duct.”34 This remains the IACP “Codeof Conduct” to the present day, but asof 2009 it has been renamed the “LawEnforcement Code of Conduct.”35 Thecode covers a broad range of ethicalissues and sets a tone of universalityby referring to “all law enforcementofficers” and prescribing standards fora generic “police officer.”36 The codeimportantly recognizes police as enfor-cers and agents of the law who mustoperate within the law, but there isalso an open acknowledgement ofthe discretion involved in the role.37

This is accompanied by stipulationson the limits of force used by police.

The code states that police must“never employ unnecessary force orviolence and will only use such forcein the discharge of duty as is reason-able in all circumstances.” This impliesthat “reasonableness” must be appliedas the test across all the possibledifferent situations in which force isused.38 Key police integrity concernsare also addressed including confid-entiality and proper storage of sensit-ive information to protect the privacyof the public.39 The integrity theme isextended further as the code alsostates that police must not accept gifts,bribes, or gain “private or specialadvantage from their official status.”40

The code also requires police to co-operate with other law enforcementofficials and agencies in the pursuit ofjustice.41 The last part of the code

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

focuses on the individual conduct ofpolice by outlining that officers areresponsible “for their own standard ofprofessional performance” and com-petence but also placing upon thema duty to continue gaining furtherknowledge and undertaking furtherstudy to assist in the competent con-duct of their duties.42 Finally, the codestipulates that, in their private lives,police must “behave in a manner thatdoes not bring discredit to their agen-cies or themselves.”43

U.N. Code of Conduct for LawEnforcement OfficialsThe 1979 U.N. Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials is intendedto cover the full range of authoritiesthat enforce the law, including anystate security forces, police, or themilitary.44 It also attempts to capturethe basic function of law enforcement,which is “the duty imposed uponthem by law, by serving the commun-ity and by protecting all personsagainst illegal acts.”45 Human rightsare central to the code, which statesthat “law enforcement officials shallrespect and protect human dignityand maintain and uphold the humanrights of all persons.”46 It places limitson the use of force by explicitly statingthat officials “may use force onlywhen strictly necessary,” while alsoapplying the principle of proportion-ality – meaning that the level of forceshould match the severity of the crimecommitted.47 Sensitive information isprotected by the code since it is onlyto be used for the purpose of servingthe needs of justice, and any other useis to be considered improper.48 Acts oftorture and cruel and degrading treat-ment are expressly forbidden by thecode, and under no circumstances canthreats to national security be used as

justification.49 The U.N. code alsoprovides guidelines for the manage-ment of persons in custody, specify-ing that all persons should receiveimpartial medical treatment whenrequired.50 Law enforcement corrup-tion is prohibited. Officials are forbid-den from engaging in corruption.51

They are also instructed to activelyseek to combat corrupt practices.52

Corruption is defined broadly as anyact associated with receiving gifts orfavors and any inappropriate act com-mitted in response to this.53 The codealso includes the expectation that lawenforcement officials follow the codeand report any breaches throughappropriate channels. Officials have aduty to “report the matter to theirsuperior authorities and, where neces-sary, to other appropriate authori-ties or organs vested with reviewingor remedial power.”54 Finally, it offersprotection for those who reportbreaches, stating that they shouldbe treated with respect and givensupport.55

Scholarly UsesThe U.N. Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials and theIACP Law Enforcement Code ofConduct are cited frequently inscholarly works on law enforcementethics.56 The literature identifies awide range of ethical issues thatchallenge law enforcement globally,from long-term issues such as corrup-tion to more recent concerns such asnon-lethal weaponry. Scholars in thefield predominantly use the codes asa reference to illustrate or supporttheir arguments for addressing par-ticular ethical issues. Theorists attimes identify additional areas oflaw enforcement ethics that shouldbe taken into account in the modern

T. Cawthray et al.

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

law enforcement environment—asseen in the work of John Kleinig(2008) and Tom Barker (2006)—butat the same time they rarely advocatemodifications to the codes to dealwith these issues.57 There are a fewnotable exceptions to this. First, LuisMolina (1990) examines the univer-sality of the U.N. Code of Conductfor Law Enforcement Officials princi-ples in the cross-cultural context ofAfrica and the legacies of colonialism.Second, Elizabeth Marshall, Lori Wei-ner, and William Brennan (1990)authored a draft code for InternalSecurity Forces that synthesizes exist-ing U.N. declarations and broadenstheir application to other internalsecurity bodies. The basis for boththese critiques differs significantly,with one focusing on whether theprinciples are universal, while theother seeks to extend the applicationof the ethical principles to a wide-r security community.58 Finally, TimPrenzler’s (2009) elaboration of codeprinciples includes suggestions forsome additions and points of clari-fication. Ultimately, however, therehas only been a small amount ofcritical discussion within the literat-ure surrounding these codes. Yet,scholars do illustrate a wide rangeof ethical issues that need to beaddressed by law enforcement, evenif they do not openly advocate their

inclusion in the international codes.This article seeks to address thisimplied need by describing the cur-rent state of the codes and the ethicaladditions that should be made.

Updating the CodesLaw enforcement’s codes of ethicsneed to cover as many ethical con-cerns as possible if they are to act aspractical measures for law enforce-ment behavior.59 Changes in the lawenforcement environment have raiseda variety of new ethical challengesthat are discussed widely in thecriminal justice ethics literature butare not addressed (or at least notadequately) in the main internationalcodes of conduct. If these codes are tobe used as yardsticks and remainpractically relevant to law enforce-ment organizations, as well as actas guides for the construction ofdomestic codes, they need to addressthese emerging ethical dilemmas. Afailure to address these issues mayrender the codes irrelevant to theday-to-day operations of law enforce-ment and thus ineffective as both atraining and disciplinary measure.60

Therefore, the international codesshould cover the ethical issues dis-cussed in the following section inorder to remain relevant.

Ethical Issues

The following sections examine theinternational codes of conduct withrespect to the key contemporaryethical issues that law enforcementagencies face in the modern environ-ment. Four key ethical themes willbe addressed: difficulties associated

with applying the internationalcodes; human rights and the use offorce; misconduct and integrity; andenforcement and accountability. Eachof these concerns has been raised indiffering forms within criminal justicestudies literature as issues that law

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

enforcement personnel may encoun-ter during their everyday operations,and thus should be addressed by theinternational codes.

Difficulties in ApplicationIn the wake of the abuses thatoccurred during the Second WorldWar, states have paid far more atten-tion to the creation and implementa-tion of international standards ofbehavior. However, while this hasmade deviant and corrupt activitiesby individual states harder to con-ceal, corruption and abuse still exist.Indeed, applying international codesof ethics at both global and locallevels offers some difficult challengesto law enforcement agencies and per-sonnel. The two key challenges facedby law enforcement are the universalapplicability of the international codesand their relevance to non-democraticcontexts. These two concerns areaddressed in the following sections.

Universality of the Codes. Both the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforce-ment Officials and the IACP LawEnforcement Code of Conduct arerecognized as the universal interna-tional codes of law enforcementethics throughout criminal justice lit-erature. In addition to this, they haveboth been created by organizationsthat can claim differing types ofinternational membership, whether itis the U.N., of which almost all of theworld’s states are members, or theIACP, which claims the membershipof police executives from over100 countries.61 The fact that thecodes are promoted by a diversemembership helps validate the claimthat they embody universal polic-ing norms.62 Further to this, theU.N. Economic and Social Council

conducted a survey in 1996 of 152states that indicated “that many mem-ber states to a large extent” hadapplied the principles of the U.N.code. The IACP code has also beenadopted as a standard code by many-agencies throughout the U.S. andinternationally.63 The language of thecodes themselves indicates that theyare designed for wide application.Both are officially categorized as lawenforcement codes of conduct, thusapplying not just to police, but also toother security services engaged in lawenforcement.64 One major issue con-cerns the question of whether thecodes are universal, are an attempt atcultural imperialism, or are viewed as“foreign” value impositions.

Differing cultural contexts are notnecessarily incompatible with theidea of universal ethical principles.Universal human rights are anexample of internationally held normsassented to and binding upon allstates.65 Basic individual freedomsincluding freedom of religion andspeech are agreed to by all statesunder the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (UDHR).66 Whileapplication and enforcement of theUDHR has been inconsistent, it iswidely acknowledged as the mostimportant international human rightsinstrument.67

We acknowledge that promotinguniversal norms might be consideredinsensitive because of cultural differ-ences, especially in relation to reli-gious beliefs. In light of culturaldifferences, a universal code needsto be sensitive to local circumstancesto make it relevant,68 but does thismean allowing the continuation oflocal customs that are unjust? Ratherthan ignore such practices and com-promise the ethical principles stated

T. Cawthray et al.

194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

within the codes, the rate of theirimplementation by states should beslowed, training provision in ethicalstandards increased, and the relativeseverity of penalties for breachesrevised.69 Distinctions need to bemade between legitimate local cus-toms and unethical practices. Oneexample of this can be found in astudy conducted on India, wheresmall-scale bribery to “get thingsdone” is widespread amongst juniorpolice officers.70 While this practice isviewed as a right by many police, itdoes not change the fact that it is acorrupt practice.71 Balance can befound between imposing culturalvalues and establishing acceptedcommon international norms. Thesenorms can take the form of broadguiding ethical principles designed toassist individual governments andlaw enforcement agencies in estab-lishing their own codes of conduct.This will allow states and agenciesto create codes that are sensitive tolocal cultural practices. Neverthe-less, an international law enforce-ment code needs to set clear ethicalstandards that police agencies canuse to combat overtly corrupt prac-tices and regulate law enforcementbehavior.

Relevance to Non-Democratic Policing.The ethical principles espoused in theU.N. and IACP codes confront aproblem when applied to a non-democratic context. Both the codesemphasize how the key responsibilityof law enforcement is to serve thecommunity, a decidedly democraticidea that in a non-democratic con-text can be very difficult to fulfill.72

Law enforcement is often a tool ofthe ruling elite and fulfills the roleof suppressing dissidents, opposition

groups, and public demonstrations.73

Often law enforcement oppresses thepeople in the supposed interests ofthe public or some higher ideal, aswas the case within the former SovietUnion.74 This places the state at oddswith the ethical principles outlined ineach of the international codes. So, iflaw enforcement is a tool of the stateand the state ignores the ethicalprinciples espoused in each of thecodes, individual law enforcementpersonnel are then placed in a diffi-cult, if not precarious, position.75

While they may individually seek toform direct links with the community,police personnel may ultimately beforced to choose whether to contra-vene ethical principles or domesticlaw.76 Police cannot create democracyby themselves, yet they can forgeahead of repressive government andengage in positive ethical policingbehavior.77 While this represents arisk, through this behavior policemay reflect democracy to the generalpopulace, thus encouraging them topush for democratic change.78 Thismeans that the codes are relevant tonon-democratic contexts because thevery reasons that make them hard toimplement in such an environmentalso make them worthwhile. Thecodes outline appropriate forms oflaw enforcement behavior and if lawenforcement organizations withinnon-democratic states do not followthese norms it is clear that they arenot operating as they should be.79

The codes, therefore, can be used as ayardstick for measuring not onlyindividual law enforcement officialconduct, but also that of entire orga-nizations when compared to theirmodes of operation. A number of theethical issues discussed within thispaper identify further opportunitiesfor non-democratic states to abuse

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

their populations, such as disrespectfor human rights, torture, and theemerging use of non-lethal weaponry.Such abuse, therefore, reinforces theimportance of making sure the inter-national codes are up to date withcurrent law enforcement needs.

Human Rights and the Use of ForceHuman rights and issues relating tothe use of force are central concernswhen discussing ethical conduct inlaw enforcement. While the interna-tional codes broadly touch on thistheme, there are several key areasidentified by scholarly enquiry thatrequire updating or inclusion withinthe codes. The following section willaddress this need by examininghuman rights frameworks, torture,proportionality, non-lethal weap-onry, and management of publicdemonstrations.

Human Rights Framework. Central toany discussion of law enforcementconduct are human rights and theinternational framework that cur-rently exists to protect them. Thereis, therefore, a substantial body ofinternational human rights standardsthat cover a range of sensitive ethicalissues. The U.N. code is part of thisframework and it makes referencesthroughout to other U.N. declara-tions.80 This is important as lawenforcement personnel hold a uniqueposition within society as agents ofthe state that are given coerciveauthority to curtail individual free-doms for social good.81 The mostimportant declaration is the Univer-sal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) adopted by the U.N. GeneralAssembly on 10 December 1948,which is treated as international cus-tomary law that is binding on all

member states.82 It established a setof universal rights held by all humansirrespective of their roles in society.83

This declaration has been accompan-ied by a number of subsequentdeclarations focused upon particularaspects of human rights. Examplesinclude the “International Covenanton Civic and Political Rights” (1966)and the “Declaration of Basic Princi-ples of Justice for Victims of Crimeand Abuse of Power” (1985).84 TheUDHR, alongside the other U.N.declarations, provides necessary pro-tections against arbitrary actions bylaw enforcement by making it clearwhich rights cannot be restricted.85

When interwoven with the U.N.code, it sets a framework of normsthat, when followed, can insurehuman rights are protected, the ruleof law is defended, and quality of lifeis improved.86 Because of the import-ance of these existing protections, anycode of ethics that claims internationalapplicability, including that of theIACP, should also refer to this frame-work when espousing its ethical prin-ciples in order to ensure it adequatelyaddresses human rights.

Torture. Torture is a long-standingpractice that has historically beenused by many forms of government,often in harsh and gratuitous ways.The “ethical” use of torture has onceagain become increasingly relevant inthe wake of the events of 11 Septem-ber 2001, with its subsequent use by avariety of security agencies. Prior tothe “war on terror,” torture was inter-nationally abhorred and ranked asone of the worst crimes prohibited,alongside genocide, war crimes, andcrimes against humanity.87 Despitethis, a debate has emerged overwhether the exceptional use of tortureshould be considered in the face of

T. Cawthray et al.

196

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

new threats to national security, mostprominently terrorism.88 This debatehas centered on whether tortureworks. Advocates have stated that ithas provided useful intelligence, whileopponents have explained that itwastes resources, produces unreliableintelligence, compromises liberal prin-ciples, and undermines the very war itseeks to aid.89 Torture is viewed as anunreliable source of information bythe legal profession because an indi-vidual being tortured may simplywish to stop his or her suffering, andagree to anything the interrogatorsays.90 Historical evidence and con-temporary testimony of interrogatorssupport these conclusions (see AliSoufan [2009] and Glenn Carle[2011]).91

The UN Code of Conduct for LawEnforcement Officials takes a veryclear position on this, forbidding lawenforcement—including military orstate security forces—from engagingin torture. It states that “No lawenforcement official may inflict,instigate or tolerate any act of tortureor other cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment.”92 How-ever, the wording within the U.N.“Declaration on the Protection ofAll Persons from Being Subjected toTorture and Other Cruel, Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment” includes the word “severe”before “pain and suffering.” This hassubsequently been used to justifyvery painful and distressing inter-rogation techniques as “not quitetorture.”93 Justifying torture in excep-tional circumstances may then makeit easier to extend its use to otherpersons.94 We argue that, on thisbasis, the word “severe” should bedeleted and a clearer form of wordsadopted to help prevent further use

of these techniques and make clearthat they are prohibited under inter-national convention.95 Failing to dothis leaves an ethical gap that can beexploited as justification for “notquite torture” interrogation techni-ques and may cause significantharm in the name of security.

The IACP code makes no referenceto torture in any of its sections. Thefailure by the code to include thispressing current ethical issue, givenits recent high profile status, is enti-rely remiss and should be addressedquickly to reinforce internationalnorms against the use of torture. Basedon these recent events, the definition oftorture needs to be expanded—how-ever, a panel of international expertswould be better equipped to develop adetailed definition.

Proportionality and Emerging Non-Lethal Weaponry. Alongside changesin the law enforcement environment,there have also been changes in thetools available to law enforcementofficials. One of the most significantof these is the introduction of varioustypes of non-lethal weaponry, whichhas important implications for use offorce proportionality. Weapons suchas stun guns and chemical spraysoffer law enforcement personnel moreforce options in the line of theirduties.96 Recognizing the ethical rami-fications of these new tools is import-ant as they both offer alternatives tolethal force and create ethical issues oftheir own through possible misuse.While developing characterizations ofproportionality is difficult, it is none-theless an important task that needs tobe undertaken. This need has beenrecognized by the U.N. through itsadoption of the “Basic Principles onthe Use of Force and Firearms by LawEnforcement Officials.” This 1990

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

declaration urges law enforcementagencies and governments to providepersonnel with non-lethal weaponsand self-defense equipment as ameans of expanding the tools avail-able to law enforcement and avoidingthe use of lethal force.97 In addition,the U.N. principles emphasize theneed for proportionality when lawenforcement personnel use forcein order to minimize damage andinjury.98 While characterizations ofproportionality are difficult to formu-late, including within the codes recom-mendations for states to develop theirown proportionality guidelines appro-priate to their local circumstances is animportant step in both taking advant-age of and regulating the use of thesenew policing tools. While it is a posit-ive step that the U.N. has made suchchanges, they are still within a separ-ate document. Given that these issuesare directly relevant to the use of forceby law enforcement, they should beincluded within the Code of Conductfor Law Enforcement Officials itself.

The broader range of intermediateforce options now available to lawenforcement provides greater meansto choose different levels of force.This increases the importance ofproviding clarity regarding propor-tionality. The introduction of certainnon-lethal weapons also creates issuesregarding appropriate use. A nation-wide U.S. study conducted by Geof-frey Alpert and Roger Dunham(2010) illustrates this need and out-lines guidelines for the use of stunguns by law enforcement. Stun gunscan potentially cause significant injuryif used inappropriately, such as if asubject falls over into traffic, water, orfrom an elevated position.99 They canalso be used in more reprehensibleways such as intentionally inflictingpain on suspects or continually

shocking already incapacitated sus-pects. This sort of behavior is danger-ous in the first instance and canamount to “not quite torture” in thesecond. Adapting the extant codes toaddress this new policing environ-ment is vital to the proper use ofthese new tools, while also reinfor-cing the argument for stronger tor-ture provisions within each code.

Thus, in addition to an officeracting with “reasonable” force, lawenforcement should also act accord-ing to the principle of proportionalityand have more tools to do so.100 TheU.N. has addressed this but the IACPhas not so far. The introduction ofproportionality would strengthen theIACP code. This would establish thatthe use of force by police should beconsistent with the resistance theyface or the severity of the crime anindividual has committed (with theargument that the individual mayreoffend if not detained). Becausethe introduction of non-lethal weap-ons raises issues surrounding theirproper use, both codes should includegeneral guidelines recommending thatlaw enforcement agencies formulateappropriate proportionality policies tospecify when and how their use isappropriate.

Management of Public Demonstrations.The management of public order orprotest is a key responsibility ofsecurity services across the globe.Public demonstrations representunique environments where largenumbers of the general public andlaw enforcement personnel can inter-act on a significant scale that canbe volatile. The 1999 Seattle anti-globalization protest stands as anexample of law enforcement’s rolein protests, while the policeresponse also highlights the need

T. Cawthray et al.

198

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

for guiding ethical principles. Pro-testors in Seattle stopped some ofthe meetings of World Trade Or-ganization (WTO) ministers andreceived international media atten-tion.101 Police were underpreparedand their aggressive response onlyled to more animosity from protes-tors, leading to downtown Seattlebeing temporarily shut down.102 Theneed for guiding ethical principleshas been recognized by the U.N. inits “Basic Principles on the Use ofForce and Firearms by Law Enforce-ment Officials,” which includes aspecific section for policing unlawfulassemblies.103 While recognizingeveryone’s right to peaceful andlawful assembly, it makes it clearthat even unlawful assemblies are tobe treated proportionally when forceis used to remove them.104 Onlywhen an assembly is violent andunable to be dealt with by lessermeans does it then permit the useof force to the least extent neces-sary.105 The importance of theseguidelines has been illustrated inrecent repressive law enforcementresponses to Muslim Brotherhoodprotests against the interim Egyp-tian government. Many of theseprotests, though seemingly non-violent, have questionably beendeclared “unlawful” by the securityforces that in turn have respondedwith violence. In contrast, pro-tests against the former presidentMohamed Morsi were supported bythe military. This reinforces the needfor proportionate use of force asadvocated by the U.N. principles.

Furthermore, the U.N. principlesfocus on unlawful assemblies; how-ever, the majority of protests in thewestern world are seen as semi-legitimate democratic methods ofeffecting change.106 Protests by their

very nature can be divisive and chal-lenge the societal status quo that lawenforcement authorities seek to up-hold.107 This suggests a strong casefor the creation of additional ethicalprinciples outlining the need for nego-tiation with protestors and proactiveplanning to facilitate peaceful protestrather than repression.108 The inclu-sion of such a section within the U.N.code would make sure it comprehen-sively covered all aspects of policingpublic protest and help avoid poorresponses by law enforcement agen-cies as was evident in the Seattleprotests. The IACP code of conductdoes not include a section on man-agement of public demonstrations.Both codes need to be updated toreflect the realities of modern protestmanagement illustrated by scholarssuch as David Baker (2012). Theyneed to include guiding principles toassist law enforcement agencies indeveloping their own codes, andprotest management guidelines toeffectively manage both peacefuland unlawful protests. This inade-quately addressed issue furtherstrengthens the case for updatingand harmonizing the internationalcodes.

Misconduct and IntegrityLaw enforcement misconduct andbreaches of integrity have been cent-ral concerns of law enforcement foras long as the institution has existed.However, the modern era providesnew challenges to law enforcementwithin this area, and the internationalcodes need to be updated to reflectthis changed environment. The fol-lowing section addresses three press-ing ethical concerns that are highlyprominent within modern policing:

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

public–private interaction, privateconduct, and gifts and benefits.

Public–Private Interaction. In the mod-ern environment, public policingagencies increasingly work alongsidea growing variety of private organi-zations that provide policing services.The private sector is an increasinglyimportant source of law enforcementservices for individuals, communit-ies, and corporate clients.109 Privatesector policing cannot be ignored andpublic police organizations do notoperate in isolation. Private sectorsecurity agencies often provide thesame services to their clients as thepublic police in varying forms acrossthe globe.110 These can range fromstandard patrols of shopping centersto conducting investigations.111 Insome countries, private security forcesoutnumber or will soon outnumberpublic police.112 As a source of order,private security and its interactionswith public law enforcement agenciesare an increasingly important issue inthe modern policing environment.This issue, however, is not coveredin either the U.N. or IACP codes.

Private sector security has awealth of resources that public policemay take advantage of if working inpartnership with them; however,their poorer accountability and theirunequal provision of policing ser-vices remain key issues.113 Public–private police partnerships at theirmost basic level involve sharingpotentially sensitive information.114

This can create problems, as manycountries lack appropriate levels ofregulation for private security.115

Questions about who has access tothis sensitive information and what isbeing done with it once it is sharedshould be raised.116 Reliance on

private police to fulfill certain poli-cing functions also poses the problemof uneven policing, where those whohave money can afford better protec-tion than those without.117 Privatepolicing sources are likely to continuegrowing and, thus, the need for eth-ical guidance on public policingcooperation with private securitywill grow more pressing as timepasses. While every national andlocal context will be different, guid-ing principles are an important start-ing point for regulating this form ofcooperation in an effort to achieve themaximum benefits while minimizingaccountability risks. The internationalcodes are an ideal vehicle for theseguiding principles and, thus, theyshould be incorporated in the U.N.and IACP codes.

Private Conduct. Law enforcementofficials hold a unique place in soci-ety due to their position of authority.Their powers to use coercive force,issue commands, and curtail libertymake them a very distinctive profes-sion that necessitates higher stan-dards of professional behavior.118

Deviant conduct on the part of anindividual official, whether they areon duty or not, may attract significantattention from the media and damagean agency’s public image.119 This ishighly apparent with the advent ofsocial media where law enforcementofficials are posting comments, pho-tos, and videos of themselves that aredeemed inappropriate by their agen-cies.120 This can potentially create ahost of problems including exploita-tion by criminals, preventing officialsfrom engaging in covert work, under-mining their credibility in court, aswell as damaging the public image oftheir agency.121 Conflict of interest

T. Cawthray et al.

200

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

and liability issues may also arise outof public police moonlighting as pri-vate security personnel or in otheroccupations that can create image pro-blems for a law enforcement agency.122

When moonlighting, public policemay face issues over what laws theyshould enforce—those of the govern-ment or the private organization theyare working for.123

Whom law enforcement personnelassociate with when off duty is also anissue. This can range from directassociations with criminals to interestsin legal but improper ventures such aslegal brothels.124 General inappropri-ate or criminal behavior by off-dutylaw enforcement—for example, drunkdriving, speeding, or assault—is alsohighly problematic. The IACP codehas partially recognized these issuesby including a brief section requiringofficers’ private behavior to be abovereproach; however, the U.N. code hasnot. The inclusion of a detailed sectionon private conduct is an importantstep towards making both codescomprehensive. This should also beaccompanied by principles coveringthe most common examples of whereprivate conduct can be a problem dueto the ethical and negative publicperception problems that can be cre-ated, such as those mentioned above.

Gifts and Benefits. Due to the positionof law enforcement officials withinsociety and their specific duties, theymay be offered additional gifts orbenefits from different members ofthe public. The gratuities that may beoffered to them can vary from asimple cup of tea from a crime victimto commercial establishments offer-ing regular discounts.125 They mayalso be offered for many reasons.Taking the two previous examples,

the crime victim is shaken and wantsthe official to have tea with them asthey make their statement, whereasthe business may be seeking greaterlaw enforcement presence for secur-ity.126 Both of these situations, whileinvolving gratuities, involve very dif-ferent ends: taking the tea from thecrime victim assists the official intheir duty, while accepting the dis-count from the business creates un-even policing and, thus, a form ofcorruption. The acceptance of contin-ued regular gratuities, even if smallin individual value, can mount up tothousands of dollars over the courseof a year.127

Both the U.N. and IACP codesrecognize gifts and benefits as anethical issue for law enforcementand take a zero tolerance approachagainst the acceptance of any gratuit-ies. There is also broad consensus inpolice ethics literature that gratuitiesare largely harmful to law enforce-ment operations.128 However, a zerotolerance approach, if followed,would mean that the official wouldhave to reject the cup of tea offeredby the crime victim.129 From thisstandpoint, it appears that officialsshould be allowed to exercise somediscretion in accepting small, low-value, incidental gifts from indivi-duals in situations, such as the onementioned in the example, whereno preferential treatment can beexpected.130 However, in order toprovide proper safeguards againstthe receipt of regular gifts, all gratu-ities should be declared to officers’respective agencies.131 Incorporatingthe discussed changes into the inter-national codes would allow bothflexibility to law enforcement offi-cials and ethical protections againstabuse of their authority. Makingthese changes would therefore

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

strengthen the gifts and benefitssection of the codes through creatingmore useable practical guidelines forlaw enforcement officials.

Enforcement and AccountabilityFor codes of ethics to be useful theymust also include elements ofenforcement so they can act as effect-ive accountability measures. TheIACP and U.N. codes do this to onlya very limited extent, and they needexpansion to ensure their continuedrelevance and usefulness. Three keyenforceability concerns—reportingbreaches, disciplinary responses,and external oversight—are dis-cussed below.

Reporting Breaches. If the U.N. andIACP codes are to be used practicallyas training tools and as broad inclus-ive models for ethical law enfor-cement behavior, then it is alsonecessary to include guidelines onwhat should happen when their prin-ciples are breached. Establishing eth-ical principles around reportingmisconduct is particularly importantdue to the difficulties that anindividual official may face when“blowing the whistle.”132 Solidarityamongst law enforcement officialsmay result in a whistleblower beingostracized, threatened by their peers,or fired by their agency.133 Establish-ing what constitutes appropriatereporting by whistleblowers isimportant to ensure their protectionand as a step in the process towardsdisciplinary sanctions against devi-ant officials.134

These issues have been recognizedin the U.N. code, which includes aspecific section on reporting breachesof the code. It states that officialsare expected to report breaches to

superiors or review bodies, includinginternal agencies, oversight bodies, orthe media as a last resort.135 It impor-tantly includes external bodies as ave-nues when no other course of actionis available, such as when miscon-duct extends into senior ranks.136 Thecode also offers some protection towhistleblowers, stating that theyshould be given respect and sup-port.137 Given the code’s expectationthat officials have a duty to reportbreaches, similarly strong principlesshould exist where agencies have anexplicit duty to protect officials whospeak out. There should also be clearsanctions against whistleblower dis-crimination.138 Punitive actionagainst law enforcement whistle-blowers by their colleagues, super-visors, and agencies is a significantproblem.139 One example of this sortof practice occurred in California inAugust 2000, when over 40 LosAngeles police officers filed a lawsuitclaiming they had faced discrimina-tion after they reported other officersfor deviant behavior.140 The officersstated that they had faced complaintsagainst them, bad assignments, demo-tions, and termination as a result oftheir actions.141 A significant numberof these lawsuits were settled, becauseof fears that the testimony of theofficers could be damaging, costingthe city of Los Angeles six milliondollars.142

A code without reporting guide-lines lacks enforceability and can,therefore, only be aspirational ratherthan practical. While the U.N. codeincludes such a section, the IACPcode does not. In order to maintainthe practicality of both codes, streng-thening the principles around whis-tleblower protection in the U.N. codeand the inclusion of a reporting

T. Cawthray et al.

202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

breaches section in the IACP codeseems prudent.

Disciplinary Responses. In order forlaw enforcement codes of conduct tohave their desired effect of regulatingbehavior, there need to be clear con-sequences for breaching their princi-ples. A code must be enforceablein order to ensure that it is takenseriously and its principles areobserved.143 A code should, therefore,include disciplinary sanctions to beenforced when its principles are brea-ched.144 Failing to include disciplinarysanctions within a code can leaveit open to being ignored, with lawenforcement officials viewing it asempty platitudes espoused by theiragency’s management.145 An exampleof this would be the gratuities sectionof a code prohibiting officials fromtaking gratuities but having no discip-linary repercussions if they are taken.

Neither of the pre-eminent inter-national codes produced by the U.N.and IACP includes a section on dis-ciplinary procedures or actions inresponse to breaches of their princi-ples. While every law enforcementagency’s internal structure and sur-rounding legal framework may bedifferent, broad ethical principlessimilar to those stated by the U.N.code with regard to reporting brea-ches could provide valuable guid-ance. Principles such as committingto investigate all reported breachesare perhaps a good starting point, aswithout this the validity or serious-ness of reported breaches cannot beestablished.146 In addition, agenciesshould establish specific disciplin-ary penalties for breaches. Throughcreation of a disciplinary matrix,breaches can be classified by theirseriousness and matched with appro-priate levels of sanctions to ensure

punishment is fair and consistent.147 Ifa breach is found to have occurred, it isimportant to establish the need foragencies to undertake disciplinaryaction in accordance with relevantnational legislation and an establishedmatrix.148 Similar to the principlesaround reporting breaches in the U.N.code, each of these ideas for ethicalprinciples offers broad guidance toensure that breaches of the code areinvestigated and disciplined. Thiswould provide practical guidancewithout beingprescriptive, thus allow-ing agencies the latitude to developtheir own locally relevant disciplinarymeasures. The addition of a section inthe international codes on disciplinaryresponses would strengthen theirenforceability and relevance.

External Oversight. Inevitably thequestion needs to be raised as towho investigates reported breachesof the code or deviant law enforce-ment behavior. One option is internalinvestigations through supervisorsor internal professional standardsdepartments.149 However, this posessignificant problems, as all too oftenwhen police corruption is made pub-lic, the quality of internal investiga-tions is questioned because of thelack of effort or complicity in corruptactivities of internal investigators.150

The Wood Royal Commission intoNew South Wales Police Service cor-ruption provides evidence of this. Itfound that internal investigations ofpolice were inherently biased andpolice investigators failed to rigor-ously investigate matters.151 Thealternative to this is external invest-igation, which may take the form ofcivilian review boards, an ombuds-man, or an independent anti-corrup-tion agency.152 The type of external

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

oversight determines the degree towhich law enforcement agencies maystill be responsible for complaintsmanagement. Civilian review agen-cies like the Independent Police Com-plaints Commission in the UnitedKingdom often depend heavily onthe police to investigate the majorityof complaints.153 In addition, theyoften rely on seconded police investi-gators for their own investigations.154

In contrast, oversight agencies suchas the New South Wales Police Integ-rity Commission and Police Ombuds-man for Northern Ireland do notemploy police investigators and con-duct their own investigations.155

Independent external oversight oflaw enforcement agencies can play avaluable role in uncovering andcountering deviance through theseprocesses.156

The U.N. code has recognized thata wide range of bodies may be

involved in investigating breaches ofthe code depending upon the indi-vidual state.157 These agenciesinclude the “appropriate authoritiesor organs vested with reviewing orremedial power.” This refers to bothinternal and independent authoritiesas well as the mass media.158 Thisrecognition is important because, bycasting the net widely, the universalapplicability of the code is reinforced.However, it also suggests greatercurrency for the idea of externaloversight. The IACP code does notinclude reference to external over-sight bodies. Oversight is almostalways resisted by police; thereforesome explicit guidance within eachcode is needed.159 General principlestowards periodic reviews of com-plaints processes and investigationsprocedures should also be establishedwithin both codes.

Conclusion

Law enforcement ethics is a difficultarea of study where the desire foruniversal applicability must alsomeet the need for practicality. TheIACP Law Enforcement Code of Con-duct and the U.N. Code of Conductfor Law Enforcement Officials haveattempted to satisfy both these needson an international level. However,both these codes were establisheddecades ago and, despite some morerecent updates (such as the U.N.’s1990 “Basic Principles on the Use ofForce and Firearms by Law Enforce-ment Officials”), they still fail toaddress a number of significant eth-ical issues that have arisen. The schol-arly literature on criminal justiceethics points out a range of ethical

dilemmas faced by law enforcement,but it has not directly critiqued theinternational codes for not addressingthese issues. This article has under-taken this task by, first, providing acontext behind the codes by brieflyoutlining their history and summar-izing their content. Second, each ofthe major ethical themes and asso-ciated issues discussed within thescholarly literature has been exam-ined, but this list is not exhaustive.Some of the examined issues arecovered in the U.N. code but are notcovered in the IACP code and viceversa, and some of these issues arenot addressed by either. It is clearthat codes of ethics can provide valu-able tools to law enforcement bodies

T. Cawthray et al.

204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

for regulating behavior through train-ing and disciplinary measures. How-ever, in order to do this they mustalso be comprehensive in addressingthe ethical issues of the day. If both ofthese codes wish to maintain and

reinforce their universality andimportance, they will need to beadapted to the modern law enforce-ment environment by addressing allthe key ethical issues presentedabove.

Notes

1 Mark Button, Doing Security: CriticalReflections and an Agenda for Change (Basing-stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); DavidBayley and Clifford Shearing, The NewStructure of Policing: Description, Conceptua-lization, and Research Agenda (Washington,DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001).

2 Bayley and Shearing, New Structure ofPolicing.

3 Dilip K. Das and Peter C. Kratcoski,“International Police Cooperation: AWorld Perspective,” in International PoliceCooperation: A World Perspective, ed. DanielJ. Koenig and Dilip K. Das (Lanham: Lex-ington Books, 2001), 6–11.

4 Ibid., 4–11; Bayley and Shearing, NewStructure of Policing.

5 Tim Prenzler, “Corruption and Reform:Global Trends and Theoretical Perspec-tives,” in Police Reform: Building Integrity,ed. Tim Prenzler and Janet Ransley (Lei-chardt, NSW: Hawkins Press, 2002), 8–9.

6 David Bayley and Robert Perito, “PoliceCorruption: What Past Scandals Teachabout Current Challenges,” United StatesInstitute of Peace, http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR%20294.pdf (accessed June28, 2012).

7 Tim Prenzler, Police Corruption: PreventingMisconduct and Maintaining Integrity (BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press, 2009).

8 Ibid.

9 Prenzler, “Corruption and Reform,”18–21.

10 John Kleinig, “Ethics and Codes ofEthics,” in Criminal Justice Ethics, ed. PaulLeighton and Jeffrey Reiman (Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001),235–6, 241–5.

11 John Kleinig, The Ethics of Policing(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996).

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.; John Kleinig and Yurong Zhang,Professional Law Enforcement Codes: A Docu-mentary Collection, (Westport, CT: Green-wood Press, 1993).

14 Kleinig and Zhang, Professional LawEnforcement Codes.

15 Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe,Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use ofForce (New York: Free Press, 1993).

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

19 Jay S. Albanese, Professional Ethics inCriminal Justice: Being Ethical When No OneIs Looking, 2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Pear-son, 2008).

20 Kleinig, Ethics of Policing.

21 Kleinig and Zhang, Professional LawEnforcement Codes.

22 Ibid.

23 International Association of Chiefs ofPolice, “Canons of Police Ethics,” in Profes-sional Law Enforcement Codes: A DocumentaryCollection, ed. John Kleinig and YerongZhang (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1993), 92–6.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

26 Ibid.

27 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials,” Office of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights (OHCHR), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/codeofconduct.htm(accessed May 14, 2012).

28 Gerhard O. W. Mueller, “The UnitedNations Draft Code of Conduct for LawEnforcement Officials,” Police Studies: TheInternational Review of Police Development 1,no. 17 (1978): 17; John Myrtle and MarkFinnane, “United Nations Seminar on theRole of Police in the Protection of HumanRights, Canberra 1963,” Criminal Law Jour-nal 35, no. 403 (2011): 403.

29 Mueller, “United Nations Draft Code,”17; Myrtle and Finnane, “United NationsSeminar,” 403–5.

30 Mueller, “United Nations Draft Code,”17.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Luis F. Molina, “Comments on the‘Universality’ of the Code of Conduct forLaw Enforcement Officials,” Third WorldLegal Studies 9, no. 3 (1990): 60.

34 International Association of Chiefs ofPolice, “Police Code of Conduct,” in Profes-sional Law Enforcement Codes: A DocumentaryCollection, ed. John Kleinig and YurongZhang (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1993), 115–17.

35 International Association of Chiefs ofPolice, “Police Code of Conduct,” 115–17;International Association of Chiefs of Police,“Law Enforcement Code of Conduct,” inPolice Chief’s Desk Reference: A Guide forNewly Appointed Police Leaders, 2nd ed.(Boston, MA: McGraw Learning Solutions,2009), 154–5.

36 International Association of Chiefs ofPolice, “Law Enforcement Code of Con-duct,” 154–5.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 For example, Kleinig’s (1996) discussionof police codes of conduct and their place inethical policing, and Pollock’s (2007) exam-ination of the role of codes of conduct indefining aspirational values of the police asa profession.

57 For example, Kleinig (2008) outlinesissues such as private–public policing inter-action, secondary police employment, andwhistleblowing. Barker (2006) identifiesareas of ethical concern including policelying, use of illicit substances, and sexualmisconduct.

58 Molina, “Comments on the ‘Universality’of the Code of Conduct,” 59–79; ElizabethMarshall, Lori Weiner, and William J.Brennan, “Draft Code of Universal Princi-ples to Govern the Structure and Account-ability of Internal Security Forces Operatingin All States,” Third World Legal Studies 9,no. 10 (1990): 199–223.

59 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

60 Ibid.

61 United Nations, “Member States of theUnited Nations”, U.N., http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml (accessed June 29,2012); International Association of Chiefs of

T. Cawthray et al.

206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

Police, “International Chiefs of Police: Inter-national Policing Division,” IACP, http://www.iacpinternational.org/html/Countries-ByRegion.htm (accessed June 29, 2012).

62 Jonathan I. Charney, “Universal Interna-tional Law,” American Journal of InternationalLaw 97, no. 4 (1993): 543–4.

63 Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice, United Nations Standardsand Norms in the Field of Crime Preventionand Criminal Justice: Report of the SecretaryGeneral (Vienna: United Nations, 1996);Kleinig and Zhang, Professional Law Enforce-ment Codes.

64 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials”; International Association ofChiefs of Police, “Law Enforcement Codeof Conduct,” 154–5.

65 Jack Donnelly, “The Relative Universalityof Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly29, no. 2 (2007), 286–92.

66 United Nations General Assembly,“The Universal Declaration of HumanRights,” U.N., http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed February 18, 2013).

67 Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights:Between Idealism and Realism, 2nd ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);United Nations Office of the High Commis-sioner for Human Rights, “World Confer-ence on Human Rights,” U.N., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ABOUTUS/Pages/ViennaWC.aspx (accessed August 22, 2013).

68 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

69 Ibid.

70 Bayley and Perito, “Police Corruption.”

71 Ibid.

72 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials”; International Association ofChiefs of Police, “Law Enforcement Codeof Conduct,” 154–5.

73 Prenzler, Police Corruption; Edwin J.Delattre, Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing,5th ed. (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2006).

74 Delattre, Character and Cops.

75 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

76 Ibid.

77 David Bayley, Democratizing the PoliceAbroad: What to Do and How to Do It (Wash-ington DC: US Department of Justice—Officeof Justice Programs—National Institute ofJustice, 2001).

78 Ibid.

79 Dilip Das and Michael J. Palmiotto,“International Human Rights Standards:Guidelines for the World’s Police Officers,”Police Quarterly 5, no. 206 (2002): 207.

80 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

81 Joycelyn M. Pollock, Ethical Dilemmas andDecisions in Criminal Justice, 5th ed. (Bel-mont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007).

82 Molina, “Comments on the ‘Universality’of the Code,” 60.

83 Das and Palmiotto, “International HumanRights Standards,” 206.

84 United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime, “Compendium of United NationsStandards and Norms in Crime Preventionand Criminal Justice”, UNODC, https://www.uncjin.org/Standards/compendium.pdf(accessed May, 14 2012).

85 United Nations, General Assembly, “TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,”(accessed May 14, 2012).

86 Das and Palmiotto, “InternationalHuman Rights Standards,” 207.

87 Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, Torture:When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible(Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 2007).

88 Ibid.

89 Lisa Hajjar, “Does Torture Work? A Socio-legal Assessment of the Practice in Historicaland Global Perspectives,” Annual Review ofLaw and Social Science 5, (2009): 312–15.

90 Pollock, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions.

91 Hajjar, “Does Torture Work?” 311–45.

92 United Nations, General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

93 Prenzler, Police Corruption; Pollock, Eth-ical Dilemmas and Decisions.

94 Pollock, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions.

95 John Kleinig, Ethics and Criminal Justice:An Introduction (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2008); Prenzler, PoliceCorruption.

96 Neil Davison, “Non-Lethal” Weapons(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

97 United Nations Congress on the Preven-tion of Crime and the Treatment of Offen-ders, “Basic Principles on the Use of Forceand Firearms by Law Enforcement,”UNOHCHR, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/firearms.htm, (accessed May 14, 2012).

98 Ibid.

99 Geoffrey Alpert and Roger G. Dunham,“Policy and Training RecommendationsRelated to Police Use of CEDs: Overviewof Findings From a ComprehensiveNational Study,” Police Quarterly 13, no. 3(2010): 252.

100 Prenzler, Police Corruption; Kleinig, Eth-ics of Policing.

101 David Baker, “Policing ContemporaryProtest,” in Policing and Security in Practice,ed. Tim Prenzler (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2012), 63.

102 Ibid.

103 United Nations Congress on the Pre-vention of Crime and the Treatment ofOffenders, “Basic Principles on the Useof Force and Firearms by LawEnforcement.”

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid.

106 Baker, “Policing Contemporary Pro-test,” 58.

107 Ibid., 57.

108 Ibid., 68–70.

109 Elizabeth Joh, “The Paradox of PrivatePolicing,” Journal of Criminal Law & Crim-inology 95, no. 1 (2004): 49.

110 Button, Doing Security.

111 Ibid.; Joh, “Paradox of Private Poli-cing,” 49.

112 Button, Doing Security; Joh, “Paradox ofPrivate Policing,” 49.

113 Button, Doing Security.

114 Heidi Boghosian, “Applying Restraintsto Private Police,” Missouri Law Review 70,no. 1 (2005): 199–202.

115 Joh, “Paradox of Private Policing,” 50.

116 Boghosian, “Applying Restraints toPrivate Police,” 180–4.

117 Tim Prenzler and Rick Sarre, “Public–Private Crime Prevention Partnerships”, inPolicing and Security in Practice, ed. TimPrenzler (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,2012), 58.

118 Kleinig, “Ethics and Codes of Ethics,”242; Seamus Miller, “Integrity Systems andProfessional Reporting in Police Organisa-tions,” Criminal Justice Ethics 29, no. 3(2010): 243.

119 Kleinig, “Ethics and Codes ofEthics,” 242.

120 Louise Porter and Tim Prenzler, PoliceIntegrity Management in Australia: GlobalLessons for Combating Police Misconduct(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012).

121 Ibid.

122 Boghosian, “Applying Restraints,” 185–6.

123 Ibid., 185.

124 Porter and Prenzler, Police IntegrityManagement.

125 Stephen Coleman, “When Police ShouldSay ‘No!’ to Gratuities,” Criminal JusticeEthics 23, no. 1 (2004): 40–2.

126 Ibid., 36, 42.

127 Jim Ruiz and Christine Bono, “At WhatPrice a ‘Freebie’? The Real Cost of PoliceGratuities,” Criminal Justice Ethics 23, no. 1(2004): 50–2.

128 Tim Prenzler et al., “Rethinking PoliceGifts and Benefits Policies,” AustralianResearch Council Centre for Excellence inPolicing and Security Briefing Paper Series,no. 13 (2012): 2.

129 Coleman, “When Police Should Say‘No!’,” 42.

130 Ibid., 43.

T. Cawthray et al.

208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13

131 Prenzler et al., “Rethinking PoliceGifts,” 4.

132 Albanese, Professional Ethics in CriminalJustice.

133 Ibid.; John R. Jones, Reputable Conduct:Ethical Issues in Policing and Corrections(Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall CanadaCareer & Technology, 1998).

134 Prenzler, Police Corruption; Miller,“Integrity Systems,” 246.

135 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

136 Albanese, Professional Ethics in CriminalJustice; United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

137 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

138 Porter and Prenzler, Police IntegrityManagement.

139 Roberta Ann Johnson, “Whistleblowingand the Police,” Rutgers University Journal ofLaw and Urban Policy 3, no. 1(2005): 81–3.

140 Ibid., 81.

141 Ibid.

142 Jessica Garrison and Scott Glover, “$6Million to be Paid in 9 Police Suits,” LosAngeles Times, December 18, 2003, http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/18/local/me-settle18 (accessed September 11, 2013).

143 Kleinig, Ethics of Policing.

144 Ibid.

145 Delattre, Character and Cops.

146 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

147 Ibid.; Prenzler et al., “Rethinking PoliceGifts,” 4–5.

148 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

149 Tim Prenzler, “Independent Investiga-tion of Complaints,” in Police Reform: Build-ing Integrity, ed. Tim Prenzler and JanetRansley (Leichardt, NSW: Hawkins Press,2002), 185–6.

150 Ibid.

151 James Wood, Royal Commission into theNew South Wales Police Service: Final Report(Sydney: Government of the State of NewSouth Wales).

152 Prenzler, “Independent Investigation,”186–91.

153 Louise Porter and Tim Prenzler, “PoliceOversight in the United Kingdom: TheBalance of Independence and Collabora-tion,” International Journal of Law, Crime andJustice 40, no. 3 (2012): 158.

154 Ibid., 159.

155 Ibid., 157–8; Garth den Heyer and AlanBeckley, “Police Independent Oversight inAustralia and New Zealand,” Police Practiceand Research: An International Journal 14,no. 2 (2013): 134, 136.

156 Prenzler, “Independent Investigation,”190–1.

157 United Nations General Assembly,“Code of Conduct for Law EnforcementOfficials.”

158 Ibid.

159 Prenzler, Police Corruption.

Updating International Law Enforcement Ethics

209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gri

ffith

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

12

Dec

embe

r 20

13