Recommended Best Practices
Recommendation 7.7 Integrate the principles of procedural justice into disciplinary processes.
Procedural justice involves four principles: (1) fair processes, (2) transparency, (3) providing opportunity for voice, and (4) impartial decision-making.[i]Departments should adhere to these principles by establishing fair systems with clear disciplinary processes. Specifically, departments should:
Promote internal fairness. If officers believe their supervisors’ actions and disciplinary decisions are fair and understandable, they’re more likely to accept, support, and comply with those decisions.[ii]The lack of clear, definitive, and advance knowledge about disciplinary systems leaves officers and supervisors uncertain about what to expect when infractions or misconduct occurs. This creates a culture of unfairness, results in processes that appear arbitrary and unjustified, and erodes officers’ trust in supervisors. Officers who work in such systems are more likely to mirror corrosive institutional cultures when they interact with community members. On the contrary, internal procedural justice leads to externally just behavior toward communities because it promotes fairness and respect.[iii](For more detail, see Chapter 9.)
Make processes transparent. Communities are often in the dark about departmental processes for holding officers accountable. The lack of transparency heightens tensions, especially when departments aren’t forthcoming with information in the aftermath of police shootings or don’t fire involved officers. Terms like “code of silence” and “blue wall,” which suggest that departments protect officers and cover up their wrongdoing, have persisted for decades.[iv] Departments must contend with this perception to establish and maintain legitimacy with the community. Indeed, disciplinary processes that lack transparency foster public mistrust; clear policies, in contrast, provide the foundation for accountability and earning community trust.
Establish clear disciplinary policies. Procedural justice also requires that officers understand the consequences for law and policy violations. Department leaders should spell out the penalties or remedial measures for violations by type and degree. Many departments have a matrix listing different types of policy violations along with their disciplinary consequences. The Austin (Texas) Police Department’s matrix indicates that an officer who fails to report a violation, for example, will receive an oral reprimand or up to three days’ suspension on the first occurrence.[v]Such flexibility allows decision-makers to consider mitigating factors (e.g., superior work history, acceptance of responsibility, and exhibited potential for rehabilitation.) and aggravating factors (e.g.,prior discipline history, malicious conduct, and expressed unwillingness to change behavior) when making disciplinary decisions.
Engage officers and community members. As with all policies, departments should engage communities when developing investigatory and disciplinary policies so they meet community needs and reflect community values. Community members deserve a seat at the table during these discussions because they are often on the receiving end of misconduct. Although labor laws may prohibit community members from participating in the collective bargaining process with unions, they do not prevent them from presenting departments with a firm set of expectations or goals to achieve through bargaining processes. When communities provide input into how departments investigate misconduct and impose discipline, they assume greater responsibility for government services.
To adhere to the principles of internal procedural justice, department leaders should seek input from officers for investigatory and disciplinary processes. By taking their concerns into account, and creating a dialogue in which officers understand the reasoning and purpose of the policies, departments will generate more buy-in from officers and create legitimacy for the departmental processes.
[i]Community Policing Dispatch, The e-newsletter of the COPS Office, Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice Course for Managers and Supervisors 8, Issue 4 (Apr. 2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2015/a_new_procedural_justice_course.asp.
[ii]Community Policing Dispatch, The e-newsletter of the COPS Office, Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice Course for Managers and Supervisors 8, Issue 4 (Apr. 2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2015/a_new_procedural_justice_course.asp.
[iii]Community Policing Dispatch, The e-newsletter of the COPS Office, Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice Course for Managers and Supervisors 8, Issue 4 (Apr. 2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2015/a_new_procedural_justice_course.asp.
[iv]See, e.g., Monica Davey, Police ‘Code of Silence’ Is on Trial After Murder by Chicago Officer, N.Y. Times (Dec. 3, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/chicago-police-code-of-silence.html; Jerome Skolnick, Code Blue, The American Prospect (Dec. 19, 2001), https://prospect.org/article/code-blue.
[v]Austin Police Dep’t, Policy Manual 537:Policy 903, 503:Policy 902 (2015), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56996151cbced68b170389f4/t/569abb6e25981de028ab67e6/1452981151162/Austin+Police+Policies.pdf.