s over them.
The police are responsible for enforcing the laws which society has said must be obeyed. Since no one is "without sin," as the New Testament saying goes (John 8:7), few can feel totally comfortable near the institution, or person, representing exposure and punishment for one's transgressions (Holcomb, 1950). By the same standard of Biblical reference - and it is a saying that has a counterpart in all cultures - there is a built-in cynicism on the part of society toward its law enforcement arm: this institution, these police officers, must be ethically imperfect in some form or another; it is impossible for them to be otherwise. And so it is in fact: human nature dictates that no one is perfect. When the ethical imperfection is manifested by a law enforcement officer, the term for that betrayal of public trust is called "corruption," or "graft."
As with "sin," what constitutes the specifics of corruption depend upon the perspective of the observer. Viewed from within the law enforcement system, the vagaries of human nature obscure any clear cut divisions - until one reaches very obvious extremes (Ruchelman, 1973). Viewed from outside the milieu of law enforcement, the public rhetoric has extremely precise definitions of corruption: anything that is not "by the book" is corrupt - when applied to the police officer (Reiss, 1972).
When applied to individual members of society, however, the "not by the book = corruption" equation for law enforcement officers is also made hazy by human nature and the fact that there are no absolutes in life. Hence, the enforcement of a traffic violation citation on a vehicle endangering others when the driver is under the influence of alcoholic beverages is considered a must; meanwhile, the general public wants a police officer to look the other way when a standard transmission automobile "rolls" rather than stops at a deserted intersection (their own vehicle, of course, ...