Slippery action
This action tends to be having a chain of occurrence such that one action inevitably leads to another with the consequences not known (Delattre, 2011). The slippery slope is more of a fallacy bore by an individual that an event will lead to other events in that sequence. The definition of a slippery slope still bears some unfolded explanation since there are a series of steps that must always occur between adjacent events. However, there is no suitable reasoning given towards explaining why the steps are skipped. The definition is based on the argument that once event U has occurred then event V must also occur hence the fallacious nature of the definition. There is no way an event can precede another without an intervening step between them.
Examples of slippery slope
“We have got to stop them from breaking into the school library. Once they get in, they will never stop. Next thing they will be on their way of taking every valuable book from the library”.
“We have to demonstrate for the petrol price hikes. The next thing before you know, they will be charging more that $4 per litter”.
Relationship between gratuities and slippery slope
In understanding the relationship between the slippery slope and gratuities, it is essential to identify a personality who is affected by these two terms. For example, taking a cop, the gratuities are the supposed free offerings that the policeman get after a rescue, which maybe inform of cash or just a mere gift. The person offering the gratuities to the police does so for the sake of showing their gratitude to the police for helping them. These has steered a debate whether the police should accept the offerings or the latter could be having their own consequences. This is because the police officer may be led into temptation of trusting the person to an extent that he would not like to offend the person even if the latter is on the wrong side. This makes the slippery slope to come into existing, because of the gratuities that the cop has received. The slippery slope and gratuities triggers the thinking that once a cop accept a gratuity, he will always turn against the law because of the short term benefits he is getting from the public. The citizens offering the gratuities always have a hidden motive of converting the cop into their side; consequently making the cops to deviate from their responsibilities. The slippery slope of the gratuities have made the cops to avoid taking the gratuities or otherwise they be fired from their jobs.
Society-at-Large Hypothesis
This is the first theory, proposed by Dellattre, about corruption among the cops. It developed from the history of corruption in Chicago in the field of criminal justice (Delattre, 2011). It started with the citizens giving gratuities as a gratitude to people working for them as house cleaners and cooks. The activity gained more popularity when the citizens realized that quality of the services by the latter would increase with the increase in the gift. It is from the society that the act extended to the cops since the citizens realized they could buy the favor of the cops using their gifts. The citizens realized that once they gave gratuities to the police officers, they could receive any favor from them; consequently, leading to the slippery slope related to the society at large hypothesis.
Structural or Affiliation Hypothesis
This theory holds that the prevalent of corruption is due to the newly recruited cops following in the steps of the senior officers who are corruption oriented. Even though the new comers always have a sense of morality at the beginning of their contract, they always change to acclimatize to the “condition” of the job due to loss of faith (Delattre, 2011). The newcomers feel that they should be united with the veterans so that they together establish a “unified department” . According to this theory, corruption mainly grows due to the socialization between the corrupted individuals and the newcomers.
The Rotten Apple hypothesis
It is third theory and the last one, which proposes that corruption, emerges from the hired officials (Delattre, 2011). These officials are usually not qualified for the work of enforcing law. Delattre asserts that according to the Chicago Crime Commission “the poor recruitment methods permitted many men to enter the department who were not suited for the law enforcement work” (Delattre, 2011). Many corruption cases have been related to the Rotten-Apple hypothesis because of the socialization between the qualified non corrupted members and the non qualified who are always corruption oriented because of their ignorance of the enforcement law. The Rotten-Apple hypothesis continued its course because of the increase in number of crimes; consequently, bringing in more rookies with little knowledge about the work requirement.
Conclusion
There are many hypotheses put forward to explain the prevalent of corruption especially among the cops. The study of these hypotheses could provide an insight on how the government should fight against corruption in the department because of having an overview about the cause of corruption. Even though they are receiving many critics, these theories have a relationship to corruption as indicated by Delattre, in his book.
Reference
Delattre, E. J. (2011). Character and cops: Ethics in policing. Washington, D.C: AEI Press.
