A Thought Experiment with Loyalty

I've been thinking about what I wrote in yesterday's blog post with respect to sanctioning police officers who knew about the disability scam but said nothing. The principal cause for this, besides each individual's self-interest, was a common uniformed department's conspiracy of silence, a loyalty to colleagues that takes precedence over loyalty to the community.

In sanctioning officers involved in a conspiracy of silence, I thought, one could take advantage of their misplaced loyalty. Instead of spending huge amounts of money determining who knew and who didn't, one could far more inexpensively determine a reasonable total amount to sanction all officers who have failed to report the criminal misconduct, and then ask all officers working during the period of the scam to voluntarily state whether or not they knew of the scam. As each officer states whether or not he or she knew, that officer's name could be placed on an online list, either Knew or Didn't Know.

If only one officer admits knowing, she will pay the entire total amount. If, out of loyalty, they all admit knowing, whether or not they really knew, each will pay a relatively small amount. Or something in between.

Loyalty will not likely allow a small number of officers to pay the entire amount. What would be interesting is whether, at first, one or a few officers would admit they knew, or whether there would be a long period where no one made such an admission, after which a huge number would admit knowing, all at the same time.

I don't expect this to be done. It is just a thought experiment. But it does show that the loyalty that is common to unhealthy ethics environments could be employed to positive ends.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---