A Thought Experiment with Loyalty

I've been thinking about what I wrote in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/police-officers-failure-report-crimin…; target="”_blank”">yesterday's
blog post</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---