Breaking the Code of Silence: The Importance of Control Systems and Empathy Toward Outgroups

• Author: Amie M. Schuck,Cara E. Rabe-Hemp
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221105219
• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Date: 01 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 11, November 2022, 1637 –1655.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221105219

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1637

BREAKING THE CODE OF SILENCE

The Importance of Control Systems and Empathy

Toward Outgroups

AMIE M. SCHUCK

University of Illinois at Chicago

CARA E. RABE-HEMP

Illinois State University

This study used data from 654 new officers attending several training academies in the United States to examine changes in

recruits’ attitudes toward the code of silence. The results of multivariate multilevel growth models showed that recruits’

experiences at the academies strengthened their adherence to the code. The results also showed that shifts in officers’ attitudes

about the community, seriousness of the misconduct, expected discipline, and familiarity with agency policies were directly

associated with changes in their adherence to the code, but changes in job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational

justice were not. Female officers exhibited less adherence to the code in incidents of physical violence compared with male

officers. The results confirm the need for reform in police training. Specifically, academy leaders should ensure that instruc-

tors and training materials present positive images of the community as well as strengthen social control systems which

reinforce the importance of reporting coworker’s misconduct.

Keywords: academy; blue wall of silence; corruption; code; misconduct; female officer; police integrity; training

INTRODUCTION

On April 20, 2021, a jury found former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin guilty

of murdering George Floyd. One unique aspect of the case against Derek Chauvin was the

testimonies of other officers, including the Minneapolis Chief of Police, who denounced his

actions. Criticism of Derek Chauvin’s conduct did not begin at his trial. Fourteen Minneapolis

police officers signed an open letter stating that “Derek Chauvin failed as a human and

stripped George Floyd of his dignity and life” (Alonso & Campbell, 2020). Even the officer

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose. This research was partially

funded by the National Institute of Justice (2008-DN-BX-0005). Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Amie M. Schuck, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago,

IL 60607; e-mail: amms@uic.edu.

1105219CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221105219Criminal Justice and BehaviorSchuck, Rabe-Hemp / CODE OF SILENCE

research-article2022

1638 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

representing the Minneapolis Police Union agreed that his behavior was horrific and that he

should be removed from the force. Derek Chauvin’s trial underscored the importance of

breaking down the blue wall of silence to advance policing systems that are accountable to

all members of the community.

The blue wall of silence, which is sometimes referred to as the blue curtain or the blue

code, is an injunctive norm among officers to avoid reporting other officers’ mistakes, mis-

conduct, or criminal behavior (Caldero & Crank, 2010; Kleinig, 2001; Skolnick, 2002;

Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993). To adhere to the blue wall of silence, which will hereafter be

referred to as “the code,” officers not only feign ignorance of others’ misconduct but also

sometimes actively participate in covering up their colleagues’ wrongdoings. Research sug-

gests that while overt endorsements of the code are rare, attitudes that normalize and per-

petuate the code are pervasive and present in law enforcement agencies around the world

(Kutnjak Ivković & Haberfeld, 2015; Kutnjak Ivković et al., 2018; Porter & Prenzler, 2012;

Rothwell & Baldwin, 2007; Weisburd et al., 2000; Westmarland & Rowe, 2018; Wolfe &

Piquero, 2011; Wu & Makin, 2019).

While we know that attitudes that normalize and perpetuate the code are pervasive in

policing, the mechanisms behind the development of officers’ beliefs are less clear. Their

identification is necessary to establish strategies for reducing police misconduct. Sherman

(1982) characterized the development of officers’ beliefs and attitudes as a trajectory in

which the officers’ moral mind-set evolves as the individual experiences exercising control,

faces moral dilemmas, and develops rationales for his or her behavior. The police training

academy is an important juncture in that trajectory. Most new recruits enter the academy

with high expectations and noble ideals, but by the time they graduate, many adopt the

negative attributes of the “canteen subculture,” including those related to misconduct and

deviant practices (Alain & Grégoire, 2008; Chan et al., 2003; Chappell & Lanza-Kaduce,

2010; Conti, 2009; Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2021; Sherman, 1982; Van Maanen, 1973;

Waddington, 1999).1

The purpose of this study is to explore the developmental trajectory of recruits’ attitudes

toward the code, with a focus on their police training academy experiences. Using data from

654 recruits attending several training academies in the United States, we examined changes

in recruits’ attitudes toward the code and evaluated the mechanisms that may help explain

the development of officers’ beliefs regarding reporting incidents of misconduct. As the

Derek Chauvin case demonstrates, there is an urgent need to identify strategies for disman-

tling the code, as it has been identified as a major obstacle to reducing corruption (Knapp

Commission, 1972; Mollen Commission, 1994; US Department of Justice, 2017) and main-

taining the legitimacy of the police (Mazerolle et al., 2013).

LITERATURE REVIEW

ETIOLOGY OF THE CODE

Research suggests that the etiology of the code is rooted in aspects of police work, char-

acteristics of police culture, and attributes of organizations (Kleinig, 2001; Skolnick, 2002).

Police work is dangerous and unpredictable, and it requires spilt-second decision-making.

These factors, combined with the sense of vulnerability that results from perceptions of

unfair scrutiny by members of the public, give rise to a close-knit subculture. At the center

of this subculture is solidarity and loyalty (Kleinig, 2001; Skolnick, 2002). Kleinig (2001)