Police Strategies to Control High-Level Corruption: A Global Perspective (2022)
Chapter: Front Matter
Police Strategies to
Control High-Level
Corruption
A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Committee on Evidence to Advance Reform in
the Global Security and Justice Sectors
Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, Award No. SINLEC20CA3213. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69606-7
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69606-2
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26781
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Police Strategies to Control High-Level Corruption: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26781.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON EVIDENCE TO ADVANCE REFORM IN THE GLOBAL SECURITY AND JUSTICE SECTORS
LAWRENCE W. SHERMAN (Chair), University of Cambridge and Metropolitan Police in London
BEATRIZ ABIZANDA, Inter-American Development Bank
YANILDA MARÍA GONZÁLEZ, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
GUY GROSSMAN, University of Pennsylvania
JOHN L. HAGAN, Northwestern University
KAREN HALL, Rule of Law Collaborative, University of South Carolina
CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University
EMILY OWENS, University of California, Irvine
JUSTICE TANKEBE, University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology
JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Study Director
SUNIA YOUNG, Senior Program Assistant (from October 2021)
ABIGAIL ALLEN, Associate Program Officer (from November 2021)
EMILY P. BACKES, Associate Director, Committee on Law and Justice
MEGAN SNAIR, Technical Writer
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD (Chair), University of Washington (retired)
SALLY S. SIMPSON (Vice Chair), University of Maryland
ROD K. BRUNSON, Northeastern University
SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, University at Albany
PREETI CHAUHAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
KIMBERLÉ W. CRENSHAW, University of California, Los Angeles
MARK S. JOHNSON, Howard University
CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University
JOHN M. MACDONALD, University of Pennsylvania
KAREN J. MATHIS, American Bar Association (retired), University of Denver
THEODORE A. MCKEE, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
SAMUEL L. MYERS JR., University of Minnesota
EMILY OWENS, University of California, Irvine
CYNTHIA RUDIN, Duke University
WILLIAM J. SABOL, Georgia State University
LINDA A. TEPLIN, Northwestern University Medical School
NATACHA BLAIN, Director
EMILY P. BACKES, Associate Director
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. First, we thank the sponsor of this study, the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, for requesting and supporting this endeavor. We have admired the sponsor’s dedication to an evidence-led approach to further its programming.
Special thanks go to the members of the study committee, who dedicated extensive time, thought, and energy to this report. In addition to its research and deliberations, the committee received input from several outside sources, whose willingness to share their perspectives and experience was essential to the committee’s work. We thank Emmanuel Akomaye, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; Jay Albanese, Virginia Commonwealth University; Princess Chifiero, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; Miriam Golden, European University Institute; Ronald Goldstock, New York University School of Law; Stephen Ratcliffe, Basel Institute on Governance; Brigitte Seim, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Oliver Stolpe, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The committee also gathered information through a commissioned paper. We thank Débora Ferreira and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, Hertie School, European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building for their paper and for contributing both to the discussion at the committee’s information gathering workshop and findings in the report.
The committee also wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in particular, to study director Julie Schuck, who supported the committee in its work,
guided commissioned paper authors and experts for the committee’s workshop, and made critical substantive contributions to the conception, writing, and editing of the report. Thanks are also due to Emily Backes who provided critical oversight and direction for the project. Abigail Allen played an essential role in providing thorough and rigorous research and writing for the project. Sunia Young provided key administrative and logistical support and made sure the committee process ran efficiently and smoothly. The National Academies Research Center, particularly Rebecca Morgan, provided valuable research assistance. From the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, we thank Kirsten Sampson Snyder, who shepherded the report through the review process, and Douglas Sprunger, who assisted with the report’s communication and dissemination. We also thank technical writer Megan Snair for quickly summarizing the presentations and discussions from the committee’s workshop and, with editor Marc DeFrancis, provided skillful writing and editing of the report manuscript.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jay S. Albanese, Wilder School of Government & Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University; John Braithwaite, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland; Susanne Karstedt, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Australia; Peter Reuter, School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland; and Wesley G. Skogan, Political Science Department and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Philip J. Cook, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out under the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Contents
The Institutional Imperative and Political Perils of Engaging Police
Defining High-Level Corruption
2 CASE STUDIES OF ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES
Prosecution of High-Level Country Leaders
3 THE NEED TO GENERATE KNOWLEDGE
Assembling Data on Police Anti-corruption Role
Assessing the State of Corruption
APPENDIX
Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff
