The “blue code of silence” refers to an unwritten rule among police officers not to report on a colleague’s errors, misconducts, or crimes, including police brutality. This code of silence is considered to be corruption amongst the police force and contributes to a lack of accountability for officers’ actions. Some key aspects of the blue code of silence include:
| Covering up police misconduct |
| Refusing to cooperate with investigations against fellow officers |
| Intimidating or harassing whistleblowers who break the code |
| Sticking to the “thin blue line” and refusing to speak out against fellow officers |
The code is considered corruption because it leads to a lack of transparency and accountability within police departments. Officers who abide by the code put loyalty to their colleagues above their duty to serve and protect the public. This allows misconduct to go unchecked and breeds mistrust between police and the communities they serve.
History of the Blue Code of Silence
The blue code of silence can be traced back over 100 years. The term itself came into use in the 1960s and 70s. However, the concept of police officers refusing to testify against each other was entrenched even earlier.
In the early 1900s, attempts were made to professionalize policing. The code of silence emerged as loyalty and solidarity among officers was encouraged. Reportedly, officers who spoke out against colleagues were ostracized or retaliated against. This created a culture of silence.
The Knapp Commission in the 1970s brought public attention to the code. Officers admitted reluctance to report misconduct, particularly abuse or violence against suspects. However, acknowledgement of the problem did not lead to meaningful reform.
High profile cases of police brutality and abuse of power in recent decades have thrown the blue code of silence into sharper focus. Events like the beating of Rodney King, the killing of Laquan McDonald, and the murder of George Floyd have underscored the troubling persistence of the code. Calls for its eradication are ongoing.
Reasons Why the Code of Silence Exists
There are various reasons why the blue code of silence persists among police officers:
| Sense of brotherhood and desire to protect colleagues |
| Fear of being shunned as a traitor if speaking out |
| Concern over losing backup on dangerous calls if viewed as disloyal |
| Worry about perjury charges if forced to testify truthfully |
| Belief that certain rules don’t apply to police |
| Department culture that discourages reporting fellow officers |
The police form a tight-knit community due to the dangerous nature of the job. Loyalty to fellow officers takes priority over accountability in many cases. There is peer pressure not to speak out, reinforced by the threat of retaliation. Whistleblowers are often discouraged or intimidated into silence.
Many argue that the code will persist until fundamental reforms are made to shift department culture. As long as the blue code is informally enforced, officers will be reluctant to break it. Ending the stigma attached to reporting misconduct is a major step.
Impact of the Blue Code of Silence
The blue code of silence has damaging effects on police accountability, public trust, and justice:
| Allows misconduct to flourish unchecked |
| Erodes community trust in the police |
| Taints criminal prosecutions involving officer testimony |
| Contributes to wrongful convictions |
| Prevents meaningful discipline for problem officers |
| Upholds a culture of impunity around police violence |
The code reinforces a perception that officers are above the law. It enables problem officers to avoid consequences for their actions. Even well-meaning officers who stay silent end up complicit in corruption.
Ultimately, the code betrays the fundamentals of justice and due process. It leads to outcomes like dangerous officers staying on the streets, convictions secured through dishonest testimony, and continued use of excessive force in communities of color.
Eliminating the blue code of silence is vital to restoring trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. When officers refuse to hold each other accountable, they fail the communities they are sworn to serve.
Examples of the Blue Code of Silence
There are numerous real-world examples that illustrate how the blue code of silence works to conceal police misconduct:
Frank Serpico
In the 1970s, NYPD officer Frank Serpico reported widespread bribery and corruption in his department. For his whistleblowing, he was harassed and nearly killed in a drug raid set up by fellow officers. The threats and intimidation Serpico faced demonstrate how the code protects wrongdoing.
Chicago PD “Code of Silence”
A 2016 report by the Obama Justice Department found Chicago PD fostered a code of silence to cover up abusive policing. Officers felt pressure to conceal each other’s misdeeds or face retaliation. Only 1 out of 10 misconduct complaints were sustained.
Baltimore Police Gun Trace Task Force
Corrupt officers in Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force engaged in years of robberies, extortion, and making false arrests. Despite warning signs, no one reported them due to the code of silence. Charges against hundreds of defendants were dropped as a result of the scandal.
Christopher Dorner Shooting
LAPD officer Christopher Dorner claimed he was fired for reporting abuse by his training officer. In 2013, he went on a shooting spree targeting police officers and their families, resulting in multiple deaths. The case highlighted retaliation against whistleblowers.
These examples and countless others illustrate how the blue code silences officers who try to report legitimate misconduct. It shields perpetrators from consequences while punishing those who want accountability.
Initiatives to End the Blue Code of Silence
There have been some initiatives aimed at dismantling the blue code of silence and promoting accountability in law enforcement:
| Policies protecting whistleblowers from retaliation |
| Requiring officers to report misconduct by colleagues |
| Stronger civilian oversight boards with investigatory powers |
| Surveys asking officers if they feel pressure not to report wrongdoing |
| Reward incentives for whistleblowing and reporting misconduct |
| Shifting police culture to treat silence as complicity |
However, these initiatives have had mixed success. The code still persists in many departments. Truly ending it will require fundamental changes like:
– Independent prosecutors for police misconduct cases
– Strict anti-retaliation protections with accountability for violators
– Greater transparency around disciplinary records
– Training that emphasizes moral courage and integrity
– Devotion to accountability and constitutional policing over loyalty
With robust reforms, reporting fellow officers should be rewarded rather than punished. A new culture of accountability can eventually replace the blue code of silence.
Conclusion
The blue code of silence is a longstanding barrier to accountability and transparency in law enforcement. It prioritizes loyalty over integrity among officers. Initiatives to end the code have struggled to shift entrenched cultural norms that protect police wrongdoing and punish whistleblowers.
Eradicating the blue code of silence will require sweeping changes to policies, practices, and culture in police departments. But it is necessary to improve trust, safety, and justice in communities. When officers report misconduct instead of covering it up, it demonstrates a commitment to constitutional policing and integrity in law enforcement. Only by speaking out can good officers counteract the corrosive effects of the code of silence.
