A reexamination of the code of silence and disciplinary fairness in South Korea over 11 years

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Wook Kang, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovich, Jeyong Jung
{"title":"A reexamination of the code of silence and disciplinary fairness in South Korea over 11 years","authors":"Wook Kang, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovich, Jeyong Jung","doi":"10.1108/pijpsm-02-2022-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper aims to provide an in-depth exploration of the code of silence in Korean policing and its relationship to perceptions of disciplinary fairness.Design/methodology/approachThe authors separately surveyed 370 Korean police officers in 2008 and 356 Korean police officers in 2019. The respondents were asked to evaluate seven hypothetical scenarios measuring different types of police misconduct from police corruption to the use of excessive force.FindingsThe results demonstrated that the strength of the code of silence decreased over a decade. The code of silence seems to protect less serious examples of police misconduct more strongly than more serious examples of police misconduct. Furthermore, the extent of the code of silence and perceptions of discipline severity are closely related in situations in which the expected discipline is evaluated by officers as too harsh. When police officers evaluated the expected discipline as fair, they were less likely to adhere to the code of silence than when they evaluated the expected discipline as too harsh, providing support for the simple justice model. On the other hand, the results are mixed for comparisons of the code of silence among respondents who evaluated discipline as fair and those who evaluated discipline as too lenient.Originality/valueThis is one of few studies focusing on the potential changes in the code of silence over time and on its relationship with the perception of disciplinary fairness. South Korea has conducted a reform of the police (the Grand Reform) in the late 1990s and more recently enacted the new laws regulating police misconduct. This study relies on two independent surveys of the same population of police officersto empirically assesses potential changes resulting from these societal and organizational transformations.","PeriodicalId":47881,"journal":{"name":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-02-2022-0021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to provide an in-depth exploration of the code of silence in Korean policing and its relationship to perceptions of disciplinary fairness.Design/methodology/approachThe authors separately surveyed 370 Korean police officers in 2008 and 356 Korean police officers in 2019. The respondents were asked to evaluate seven hypothetical scenarios measuring different types of police misconduct from police corruption to the use of excessive force.FindingsThe results demonstrated that the strength of the code of silence decreased over a decade. The code of silence seems to protect less serious examples of police misconduct more strongly than more serious examples of police misconduct. Furthermore, the extent of the code of silence and perceptions of discipline severity are closely related in situations in which the expected discipline is evaluated by officers as too harsh. When police officers evaluated the expected discipline as fair, they were less likely to adhere to the code of silence than when they evaluated the expected discipline as too harsh, providing support for the simple justice model. On the other hand, the results are mixed for comparisons of the code of silence among respondents who evaluated discipline as fair and those who evaluated discipline as too lenient.Originality/valueThis is one of few studies focusing on the potential changes in the code of silence over time and on its relationship with the perception of disciplinary fairness. South Korea has conducted a reform of the police (the Grand Reform) in the late 1990s and more recently enacted the new laws regulating police misconduct. This study relies on two independent surveys of the same population of police officersto empirically assesses potential changes resulting from these societal and organizational transformations.
重新审视韩国11年来的沉默和纪律公平准则
本文旨在深入探讨韩国警务中的沉默准则及其与纪律公平观念的关系。△设计/方法/方法:作者分别对2008年的370名韩国警察和2019年的356名韩国警察进行了调查。受访者被要求评估七种假设情景,衡量从警察腐败到过度使用武力等不同类型的警察不当行为。研究结果表明,沉默代码的强度在过去十年中有所下降。沉默守则似乎对不太严重的警察不当行为的保护比对更严重的警察不当行为的保护更强。此外,在预期的纪律被警官评价为过于严厉的情况下,沉默守则的程度和对纪律严肃性的看法密切相关。当警察认为预期的纪律是公平的,他们不太可能遵守沉默准则,而当他们认为预期的纪律过于严厉时,这为简单正义模型提供了支持。另一方面,在评价纪律公平和评价纪律过于宽松的受访者中,沉默准则的比较结果是混合的。原创性/价值这是少数几项研究之一,主要关注沉默准则随着时间的推移可能发生的变化,以及它与纪律公平感的关系。韩国在20世纪90年代末对警察进行了改革(大改革),最近颁布了规范警察不当行为的新法律。本研究依赖于对同一批警察进行的两项独立调查,以经验性地评估这些社会和组织变革所带来的潜在变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: ■Community policing ■Managerial styles and leadership ■Performance measurement and accountability ■Pursuit guidelines ■Crime trends and analysis ■Crisis negotiation ■Civil disorder ■Organized crime ■Victimology ■Crime prevention ■Career development ■High risk police activities ■Routine policing ■Traffic enforcement ■Civil litigation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信