Network exposure and excessive use of force

• Date: 01 August 2019
• Author: Jason Gravel,Andrew V. Papachristos,Sadaf Hashimi,Marie Ouellet
• Published date: 01 August 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12459

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12459

RESEARCH ARTICLE

SOCIAL TRANSMISSION OF POLICE MISCONDUCT

Network exposure and excessive use of force

Investigating the social transmission of police misconduct

Marie Ouellet1Sadaf Hashimi2Jason Gravel3

Andrew V. Papachristos4

1Georgia State University

2Rutgers University

3University of Pennsylvania

4Northwestern University

Correspondence

AndrewV. Papachristos, Institutefor Policy

Research,Northwestern University, 2040

Sheridan Road,Evanston, IL 60208.

Email:avp@northwestern.edu

Research Summary: In this study, we investigate how a

police officer’s exposure to peers accused of misconduct

shapes his or her involvement in excessive use of force.

By drawing from 8,642 Chicago police officers named in

multiple complaints, we reconstruct police misconduct ego-

networks using complaint records. Our results show that

officer involvement in excessive use of force complaints is

predicted by having a greater proportion of co-accused with

a history of such behaviors.

Policy Implications: Our findings indicate officers’ peers

may serve as social conduits through which misconduct

may be learned and transmitted. Isolating officers that

engage in improper use of force, at least until problem-

atic behaviors are addressed, seems to be critical to reduc-

ing police misconduct and department-wide citizen com-

plaints. Future studies should be aimed at investigatinghow

social networks shape police misconduct and the ways net-

work analysis might be used to diffuse intervention strate-

gies within departments.

KEYWORDS

complaint records, network analysis, police misconduct, use of force

On the morning of October 5, 2018, the city of Chicago held its breath as a jury decided whether

Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was guilty of murdering 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. The

case hinged on police dashcam video footage that showed Van Dyke, and his partner, arriving on an

active scene surrounding a knife-wielding McDonald (Davey & Smith, 2015). Within 6 seconds of

Criminology & Public Policy. 2019;18:675–704. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2019 American Society of Criminology 675

676 OUELLET ET AL.

exiting his car, Van Dyke commanded McDonald to drop the knife; when McDonald failed to comply,

Van Dyke shot McDonald 16 times, continuing to fire his weaponaf ter McDonald was already laying

on the ground. The shooting itself happened 4 years earlier, 2 months after Michael Brown was shot in

Ferguson, MO, and a month before Tamar Rice was shotin Cleveland, OH, but the video was released

only after litigation filed by an investigative journalist. The release of the video sparked protests

across the city and the nation, leading to the firing of the Chicago Police Superintendent, the failed

reelection of the Cook County State’s Attorney, and a massive inquiry into the patterns and practices

of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) (Davey & Smith, 2015; Department of Justice, 2017). Van

Dyke was charged with first-degree murder. The city braced for the verdict, with residents and police

fearing an acquittal might lead to protests and unrest similar to those after the acquittal of Los Angeles

police officers in the beating of Rodney King (Sastry & Bates, 2017). It took the jury only 1 day to

reach a verdict: Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated

battery with a firearm—one count for each shot that hit McDonald. This was the first time in 50 years

a Chicago police officer was convicted in the shooting of a citizen (Smith, Williams, & Davey, 2018).

Van Dyke was acquitted of the charge of “official misconduct”—defined as “knowingly perform[ing]

an act he knows he is forbidden by law toper form” (Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 5 § 33.3).

Police misconduct has a direct negative impact on citizens resulting in the tragic loss of life, massive

racial disparities in criminal-justice–related outcomes, and negative health consequences for neigh-

borhoods and populations experiencing first- or even second-hand police abuses (Bor, Venkataramani,

Williams, & Tsai, 2018; Sewell& Jefferson, 2016; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). Police misconduct, abuse,

and violence also rattles the foundation of trust between residents and police (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

The police–citizen relationship is one of the most distinctive features of police officers’ jobs as their

daily duties mandate interaction and cooperation with the public, often in unpredictable settings. When

residents become cynical of the police, they tend to withdraw from contacting the police (Desmond,

Papachristos, & Kirk, 2016) and, instead, may either seek out informal waysto police themselves or else

leave some public safetymatters unattended (Pattillo, 1998; Venkatesh, 2006). Police simply cannot do

their jobs effectively without a workingrelationship with t he community. Cynicism and mistrust of the

police can stymie or hinder public safety efforts and, instead, keep crime rates higher in the same com-

munities where fair and just policing practices are most needed (Baumer, 2002; Bobo & Thompson,

2006; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). For example, in a recent study in Milwaukee,scholars demonstrated

that highly publicized instances of police abuse cause residents to shy awayfrom calling 911—even for

serious crimes such as robbery or assaults (Desmond et al., 2016). Understanding and doing something

about police misconduct and abuse, then, becomes a significant policy issue not simply for repairing

trust in the police but also for ensuring fair and just policing practices.

Explanations of police misconduct and abuse often begin by focusing on personality traits or

characteristics of individual officers, including race, ethnicity, gender, education, temperament, and

even psychological disposition (e.g., Brandl, Stroshine, & Frank, 2001; Chappell & Piquero, 2004).

Taking such an individual approach often requires seeking out “problem officers” within a police

department—the proverbial “rotten apples” approach. In a rotten apples approach,Jason Van Dyke, not

the more than seven other officers at the scene of the shooting, in particular, or the CPD, in general, is

the source of the abuse and misconduct. And, indeed, before the murder of McDonald, Van Dyke had

more than 20 documented complaints filed against him, many of them for excessive “use of force”; one

complaint against VanDyke resulted in a $350,000 city payout to the complainant (McLaughlin, 2015;

Wald, 2018). With other explanations, organizational characteristics are prioritized, such as a unique

police worldview,hypermasculinity, and the “noble cause of public safety” as the main drivers of police

misconduct and abuses (e.g., Crank & Caldero, 2000; Delattre, 2002; Hebert, 1998; Kappeler, Sluder,

& Alpert, 1998; Klockars, 1980). In contrast to the “rotten apples” approach, in this “rotten barrel”