System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Essay Example For College

Part 1

What Is Risk Management?

Risk management is a systematic process that seeks to identify, analyze, reduce, and monitor risks to limit the possibility and effect of unfavourable occurrences that might compromise an organization’s objectives and goals. Risk management in IT security entails locating and analyzing points of vulnerability in an organization’s data storage, transmission, and processing infrastructure. The method aids businesses in assessing risks, establishing a tolerable threshold of risk, and settling on a set of top priorities for reducing those risks.

Risks need to be identified, analyzed, evaluated, treated and monitored as part of the overall risk management process. Analyzing a company’s assets, systems, networks, and procedures may help detect risk. Organizations conduct risk assessments, threat assessments, and vulnerability assessments during the risk analysis to gauge the possible effect and probability of hazards (Acharya & Sahu, 2020). Establishing what constitutes an acceptable level of risk and ranking potential threats is part of the risk appraisal process. Risks may be avoided, transferred, reduced, or even accepted; these actions are all part of the risk-handling process. The last step in good risk management is risk monitoring, which entails keeping tabs on potential threats and the efficacy of any measures taken to counteract them.

How is risk management appropriately applied to the systems development life cycle (SDLC)?

Risk management is applied effectively to the systems development life cycle (SDLC) by integrating security activities physically and conceptually into the SDLC policy and guidelines instead of retaining them in a separate document or security life cycle. By incorporating it into the SDLC procedure, risk management is no longer an afterthought but an essential component of the process. Planning, analysis, design, development, testing, implementation, and maintenance are all stages of the software development life cycle (SDLC). Potential threats to creating and maintaining IT systems may be identified and countered if risk management is used at each stage.

Risk management in the planning phase includes searching for, and possibly rating threats to the planned IT system and evaluating its viability. Risk management in the analysis and design stages should focus on discovering weak spots and building safeguards to plug them (Acharya & Sahu, 2020). The efficacy of the security measures should be tested and validated throughout the development and testing stages as part of the risk management process. To guarantee the sustained effectiveness of security measures during the deployment and operations phases, they must be continuously monitored and updated as part of the risk management process. Organizations may better ensure the safety of their IT infrastructure and lessen the chance of data breaches and other security events by integrating risk management into the software development life cycle (SDLC).

When Is Risk Management Most Appropriately Integrated into the SDLC?

Including risk management within the SDLC from the beginning of the planning process is recommended. At this phase, businesses may evaluate the proposed IT system’s practicability and identify any associated risks. Risk management activities should be included in the SDLC process from the beginning so that firms can proactively detect and address threats to their IT infrastructure (Pilliang & Munawar, 2022). This makes risk management an inherent software development life cycle (SDLC) element rather than an afterthought.

Risks That a Systems Analyst Should Be Aware Of

During the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), systems analysts must be alert and watchful for potential threats. One risk is the possibility of data breaches or other security events that jeopardize sensitive information and ruin the organization’s image. Project delays or failures may pose a threat since they can lead to increased costs, missed deadlines, and decreased support from critical stakeholders (Jimoh et al., 2022). The user experience and output may also suffer if the system performs poorly or lacks necessary features. Systems analysts may successfully limit and manage risks by recognizing them early on and formulating and implementing suitable mitigation methods.


Systems analysts should design and implement suitable security measures, including access restrictions, encryption, and monitoring tools, and perform frequent security audits and assessments to reduce the likelihood of security events. Systems analysts should ensure the project is on track and satisfies stakeholders’ expectations by creating a precise strategy, defining the project’s objectives and timeframe, and constantly contacting them (Jimoh et al., 2022). Systems analysts should do extensive testing, and quality assurance, including load testing, usability testing, and functional testing, to verify the system satisfies user requirements and performs as expected.

Part 2


Selecting the most appropriate transition strategy is crucial to implementing a new salesforce management system. Direct cutover, parallel operation, pilot operation, and phased operation are the four most prevalent changeover methods. There are positives and negatives to every one of these strategies. In this presentation, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.

Direct Cutover

During a direct cutover, the old system is shut down, and the new one is activated at a predetermined moment. Although it is the simplest and least expensive method, it carries the most significant risk (Avgerou, 2019). The most significant threat is that the switchover to the new system will fail, leading to a total breakdown of operations. For simple, low-risk systems, the direct cutover method works well.

Operation in Parallel

While transitioning from one system to another, the parallel operation allows both systems to function simultaneously. This method enables a comparison of the two systems’ outputs, which helps locate anomalies and verify the new system’s correctness (Avgerou, 2019). This method, however, requires extra resources to maintain both systems throughout the transition period and is more expensive and time-consuming than a direct cutover.

Pilot Operation

Pilot operation is transitioning to a new system in which a subset of users test the system before the system is introduced to the rest of the company. This method enables a smooth transition to the new system, and the input from the pilot users may assist in uncovering any possible problems before the technology is widely deployed (Avgerou, 2019). But, training the pilot users takes more time and money, and there’s a chance that they don’t accurately reflect the demands of the whole firm.

Phased Operation

Phased operation is a method of transitioning to a new system that involves progressively introducing new features and capabilities to the existing system. The risks involved with installing a new system may be mitigated using this method, enabling a more controlled and systematic transition (Avgerou, 2019). This method, however, might be more expensive and time-consuming than others since it requires testing and validating each module or function individually before being released.


In conclusion, there are advantages, disadvantages, benefits, costs, and dangers associated with each transition method. Direct cutover is the cheapest but most dangerous option; hence, it should only be used for simple systems. Parallel operation is more expensive and time-consuming, but it allows for comparing the results from the two systems. The pilot operation method provides a more gradual transition to the new system, but educating the pilot users takes more time and money. The last option, phased operations, provides for a more orderly and gradual changeover, albeit at the expense of increased expense and time. The company’s upper management should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of each method before settling on the one that would work best for the salesforce management system.


Acharya, B., & Sahu, K. (2020). Software Development Life Cycle Models: A Review Paper. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)11, 169-176.

Avgerou, C. (2019). Contextual explanation: Alternative approaches and persistent challenges. MIS Quarterly43(3), 977-1006.

Jimoh, R. G., Olusanya, O. O., Awotunde, J. B., Imoize, A. L., & Lee, C. C. (2022). Identification of Risk Factors Using ANFIS-Based Security Risk Assessment Model for SDLC Phases. Future Internet14(11), 305.

Pilliang, M., & Munawar, M. (2022). Risk Management in Software Development Projects: A Systematic Literature Review. Khazanah Informatika: Jurnal Ilmu Komputer dan Informatika8(2).

A Defense Of The Individual’s Right To Privacy Over Their Genetic Information University Essay Example


Genetic information has been the subject of much controversy within technology and ethics. In particular, the debate has revolved around the rights of the individual providing the genetic samples. Most practitioners agree that there should be more nuance to the legality, ethics, and process of collecting genetic samples from individuals. There are two main sentiments within the genetic information controversy. The progressive sentiment focuses on the benefits of collecting genetic information from individuals and populations. The conservatism sentiment looks to the inevitable infringement of the individual’s moral right to withhold genetic information. This paper sides with the conservatism sentiment by arguing that individuals must retain their right to privacy with respect to their genetic information. in addition, this paper concludes that the individual falls under no moral obligation to disclose their genetic information to third parties.

The right to one’s privacy with respect to their genetic information is a fundamental right held by any individual and superseded by none. That is, no recognized human right supersedes the individual’s right to their genetic privacy. Even the right to life- were we to assume that another individual’s genetic information could save another person’s life- does not supersede the right to one’s privacy of their genetic information. Genetic information, at its core, is an abstract possession of the individual to whom it belongs. The only exception to this rule is a gray one, which pertains to instances where an individual has expressly allowed a third party to collect their genetic information. According to Chadwick (2008, p.162), the doctrines concerning the collection of genetic information are far from adequate. They are inadequate to protect the individual from misappropriating their genetic information. For instance, an individual could choose to provide their genetic details but is limited in their knowledge of how the third party intends to use their genetic information. Without a contract that absolutely separates the ownership of the genetic information from the individual that provides it, one must conclude that there can be no right higher than an individual’s right to one’s privacy of genetic information. To that end, no individual can be morally obligated to provide their own genetic information to a third party.

Individuals are morally obligated to protect themselves and their families from harm. Such harm can be caused by allowing third parties to access and retain one’s genetic information. An individual is first and foremost responsible for their own self. His self pertains not just to his body and mind but also to his freedom. This argument is not just relevant; it is also important. This is because it contradicts the proposition that an individual could be morally obligated to provide genetic information about themselves. Allowing third parties to collect one’s genetic information has been linked to a number of severe disadvantages. First, insurance companies may decline to offer insurance premiums to individuals diagnosed with certain illnesses, such as cystic fibrosis and breast cancer (Evans et al., 2001, p. 1053-1054). This means that the procurement of genetic information may actually negatively impact the quality of life for the individual it was procured from. Secondly, the knowledge of mutations that exist in minorities has- in the past, been used to discriminate against minorities. This shows that there is an actual and severe disadvantage to be accrued if one decides to share their genetic information. Insurance companies will decline to offer premiums regardless of whether the disease has manifested or is unlikely to manifest. That is, an individual applying for an insurance premium will not just be judged by their genetic makeup but by the genetic makeup of known relatives. Some diseases are hereditary or genetically prevalent in a family, meaning that entire families could be denied insurance premiums (Fulda and Lykens, 2006, p.143). Based on this information, an individual could be argued to be morally obligated to protect their genetic information and that of their families. And this moral obligation cannot coexist with that of being required to provide one’s genetic information to third parties.

There is no moral connection between harming others and keeping one’s genetic information private. To understand this concept, it is necessary to apply an abstract example. Person A’s life, property, or freedom are in jeopardy. Person B is an ordinary person whose genetic information could save Person A from losing their life, property, or freedom. The solution in this conundrum cannot be derived by sacrificing Person B’s genetic information. More importantly, there can be no moral obligation placed on person B to reveal their genetic information. The information being his- and only his, is not an object that can be separated from his ownership. He reserves exclusive rights to his private genetic information, and no standard or moral imperative can supersede the right to one’s private information. This means that regardless of the perceived moral significance of letting an individual suffer or die, the consequence cannot be attached to the privacy of one’s information as its cause. Everyone is entitled to private ownership of their genetic information because it pertains to them and only them. Based on this principle, it would be absurd to conclude that there is a moral obligation to provide a third party with one’s genetic information for any reason. If harm to others is not a strong enough justification, then no justification may be applied to deprive an individual of the right to privacy of their information. Thus, no good and consistent system of ethics developed by the human mind can impose a moral obligation upon the individual to share their private genetic information with third parties.

Possibly the most potent argument opposing the individual right to privacy to one’s genetic information is the utilitarian argument. The utilitarian argument focuses on the maximum good attainable for the most people in any situation (Mulgan, 2014, .n.p.). As per the principles of utilitarianism, infringing upon an individual’s right to privacy of their genetic information produces a higher maximum good for society as a whole as opposed to letting individuals keep their genetic information. Third parties such as insurance companies could, for instance, argue that it is imperative to have the genetic records of those seeking insurance premiums. For insurance companies, such information could prevent huge losses and allow more people to access insurance. Fortunately, the concept of maximum good is a bit convoluted because it does not consider the individual’s happiness or contentment. At its core, utilitarianism must ignore the needs of the individual in favor of the group. This approach by utilitarianism does not endear itself to individualists who argue that the individual must be treated as a distinct entity and not as a fraction of a homogenous whole. And it is true and valid; the individual must be considered as a rational and complete entity whose life conditions cannot be reduced to the properties of a group of people. The individual is just as important as the group, and the freedoms enjoyed by the group cannot logically supersede the individual’s rights. To that end, the maximum good is not a sufficient reason to deprive the individual of their personal and inalienable rights. This means that an individual cannot be deprived of their right to privacy because the overall outcome would benefit human society.

The fact that the utilitarian argument is the strongest defense of depriving individuals of their right to genetic privacy is a testament to the weakness of the overall argument. One’s right to the privacy of their genetic information is a right that stands as high as all human rights and cannot be superseded by any circumstance. Even when genetic testing is done in the name of posterity, most of the illnesses or conditions being tested for are incurable. In addition, the cost of divulging genetic information is tangible to the individual, while the benefits are far in the future and never guaranteed. The various pitfalls associated with sharing one’s private genetic information practically absolve the individual of any potential responsibility to act in a utilitarian manner. The individual is allowed to deliberately provide the private genetic information but should not expected to. In essence, no individual can and should be morally obligated to provide their own genetic information to a third party.


To even consider that an individual could be obligated to bring potential harm to themselves and their families is an absurd argument, to say the least. An individual must, at all times, retain ownership of their private information. This is because the right to privacy of one’s information is a fundamental right that is inalienable to the individual. In the same way that an individual cannot be deprived of ownership of their body, they cannot be deprived ownership of their private information. When that is coupled with the failure of the utilitarian argument to consider the individual, it becomes clear that the right to privacy of one’s genetic information is based on solid argumentation. Consequently, an individual cannot be morally obligated to share their own genetic information with third parties.


Chadwick, R. (2008). Genetic testing and screening. The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics, 160.

Evans, J. P., Skrzynia, C., & Burke, W. (2001). The complexities of predictive genetic testing. Bmj322(7293), 1052-1056.

Fulda, K. G., & Lykens, K. (2006). Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: a public health perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics32(3), 143-147.

Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding utilitarianism. Routledge.

The Cause(S) Police Deviance, Abuse Of Given Power, And Corruption Sample Essay

Section 1: Introduction

The issue

Law enforcement officers have a crucial role in keeping the peace, safeguarding the public, and thwarting criminal activity. Yet, in recent years, worries about police corruption, power abuse, and criminal behavior have increased. Problems like these may lead to a decline in public confidence in law enforcement, a weakened criminal justice system, and even abuses of basic human rights.

Background of the issue

Law enforcement officers are the ones that patrol our streets, investigate crimes, and make arrests. It is their job to enforce the laws of the land and ensure the safety of society. However, corruption within law enforcement agencies undermines public confidence in an agency responsible for keeping us safe from crime and abuse of power. Reports show that police officers violate the rights of citizens by using excessive force, falsifying records, and making improper arrests for trivial offenses. Due in large part to the proliferation of social media and the ensuing scrutiny of police officers’ behavior, police misconduct has received a lot of media coverage as of late. Cases of police violence and corruption have been widely publicized in the media, prompting demands for more accountability, transparency, and change in the criminal justice system. Although it has been a common practice for law enforcement agencies to keep this type of illegal activity under wraps, Gottschalk’s (2018) studies suggest many cases of misconduct, such as drug trafficking, bribery, and sexual harassment. In addition to these crimes, police officers have also been involved in improper arrests, including those resulting from racial profiling and illegal searches. Even though excessive force and other misconduct are not new to this agency, the present climate of corruption is at an all-time high.

Scope and Aim Structure/Flow of the Essay

By a review of the relevant literature, the author hopes to isolate relevant themes and develop conclusions about the root causes of police misconduct, abuse of authority, and corruption. The paper will first address the reasons why police officers may commit acts of misconduct. It will then analyze the existence and prevalence of corruption within law enforcement agencies. The final section will examine the issue critically and make recommendations for law enforcement agencies to ensure that they are not corrupted by or become a perpetrator of corrupt practices.

Section 2: Literature review and research finding

The reasons for police deviation, abuse of authority, and corruption must be understood from a theoretical, legal, and empirical standpoint. Below is a summary of three academic publications that have been thoroughly evaluated by experts in the field and that provide light on the topic at hand.

The first piece discusses the need for organizational justice in reducing police misbehavior and is written by Clinkinbeard, Solomon & Rief (2021). The authors contend that officers are less likely to participate in misbehavior when they see their department as fair and equitable. Overzealous use of force, corruption, and abuse of authority were all shown to be more common among police personnel who felt there was a lack of organizational justice. Many theoretical frameworks have been put out to explain police deviance, power abuse, and corruption in the huge and intricate body of published work on the topic. Porter (2013), for instance, has contended that human issues, including character flaws, emotional instability, and occupational constraints,, play a role in police misconduct. Organizational culture, a lack of accountability, and insufficient training have been listed as other possible factors that may contribute to misconduct. Donner’s (2019) theorist, for instance, has argued that the monopoly on the use of force by law enforcement agencies fosters misuse of power. Commonly known as personal police deviance, this type of misconduct is also influenced by “self-controlled responding,”,” or competence and incompetence at decision making. A lack of accountability has also been proposed as a factor in police deviance. For instance, this can be seen within the military, a profession where commanders may not be held accountable for their decisions. Civilian agencies however have far more power than their military counterparts, making it easier for them to misuse their authority.

In his second piece, Fridell, Maskaly & Donner (2021) examines the moral and legal complications of police misbehavior. The author claims that cops should be held to a higher standard of behavior because of the authority and power they are given. According to the results, police misbehavior is exacerbated by the absence of uniform policies and procedures among law enforcement. Furthermore, nature of the profession may make police officers more susceptible to misconduct (Vadera & Aguilera, 2015). For instance, this can be seen in the relationship between treatment (force) and response (crime) in policing. More specifically, Vadera & Aguilera argues that police officers may be prone to committing deviant acts in an effort to relieve stress. However, this can be seen within the stress-strain model, where police officers are exposed to high levels of stress and strain, hence, these factors may contribute to police deviance. Another theory that has been put forward is that of organizational deviance, which emphasizes the impact of organizations on police power abuse (Agbiboa, 2015). Therefore, this type of model draws attention to how the structure and culture of an organization affect law enforcement officers’ deviant behaviors.

Thirdly, Akinlabi (2017) investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on police brutality. The authors contend that African American and Hispanic police officers are more prone to participate in misbehavior than their white colleagues due to their shared racial and cultural backgrounds. The research concluded that discrimination based on race or ethnicity has a role in police brutality. Deviance from the law, misuse of authority, and corruption in law enforcement are all regarded as significant crimes and are penalized by a number of laws. In the United States, for instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion, while the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects individuals against excessive searches and seizures. Officers are also required to follow the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Code of Ethics, among other standards of conduct and ethics (Donner, 2019). However, despite such laws and ethical codes, there have been cases of police corruption around the world. For instance, in the United States, police officers are regularly involved in excessive force and killings. Some even believe that police brutality is out of control. Like any other profession, however, policing is not immune to corruption and unethical actions. Police officers have been involved in a number of incidents that have fueled public outrage in recent years.

Cops breaking the law, abusing their authority, and being corrupt are problems identified by Gottschalk (2016) to exist in a broad range of countries and regions. Gottschalk (2016) research has shown, for instance, that when police officers feel unappreciated by society or that their employer does not support them, they are more prone to participate in dishonest or corrupt activities. There is evidence from Vadera & Aguilera (2015) studies that show more openness, accountability, and monitoring may help curb police wrongdoing. For instance, South Africa has established a Corruption Monitoring Unit that monitors government officials and provides them with better oversight. There are a number of factors that contribute to police misconduct in the United States. However, these factors include lack of training, poor supervision, and insufficient accountability. Supervisory officers are also considered a factor in misconduct, because they may delegate tasks to subordinates without monitoring them (Agbiboa, 2015). However, this may lead to poor performance and failure to follow laws. The limited autonomy granted to officers due to the nature of their work has been cited as another factor that can contribute to police misconduct. Police officers’ limited autonomy is considered a serious security risk due to the many opportunities they have for misconduct.

Section 3: Critical analysis of the issue

The idea that police misconduct exists can be traced back to ancient times. In his work Santas (2008) “The Republic”, Plato discusses the theory in the form of Socrates and Critias. Socrates is said to have questioned why thieves, for example, would steal from their own community. His colleague Critias claimed that it was because they wanted to get paid somehow, even if it was a little bit of money. However, this indicates that there are rules and laws in place, which criminals try to avoid breaking. Implying that there are rules, Plato argues that the choice to break them is a punishable crime. Furthermore, Kraut (2002) in his “The Politics”, Aristotle uses the example of a slave who steals from his master: if the slave stole for profit, this would be considered an unjust act. If a slave stole out of need, he would be considered just. Aristotle bases this argument on the idea that “justice” is the same in all people. Therefore, since stealing is already a crime, there is nothing unjust about punishing those who break the law.

Individuals, communities, and the criminal justice system as a whole suffer when police deviance, power abuse, and corruption occur. Wrongful arrests, fraudulent convictions, disproportionate use of force, and other violations of civil rights are only some of the possible outcomes of such actions. Nonetheless, Boateng, Hsieh & Pryce (2022) contend that police officers work in an inherently corrupt system because of the difficult and dangerous conditions in which they must operate. Additionally, high-profile incidents of police misconduct in recent decades have generated concern and outrage among the American public.

The fundamental question in the analysis of police misconduct is whether the laws that exist to punish law enforcement officers who break the law are fair or unfair. Bosse & Phillips (2016) contend that these laws target minorities disproportionately. Other questions to consider would be why these laws exist and whether or not police officers should have the same rights as other citizens. However, Gottschalk (2018) oppose that although there is a lot of legislation in place, the legal system does not adequately account for some important factors. For instance, first-hand experience can better help in interpreting what officers go through, and this can influence their likelihood of being tempted by crime.

There are many different theories on what motivates police misconduct, misuse of authority, and corruption. Although some say improper police behavior is the consequence of a few bad apples, others say it is systematic and embedded in police culture. It has been argued that if law enforcement agencies were more accountable and transparent, it would help cut down on police misbehavior. Some critics argue that police brutality occurs because agencies lack transparent policies and procedures. Police forces face a difficult balancing act between enforcing laws and protecting the rights of citizens. An example of this is a law that prevents police officers from stopping motorists without permission in order to search their vehicles. Police forces may not have enough training and are reluctant to ask for permission from an officer even if it involves an auto burglary or fugitive search (Porter, 2013). In addition, there is a growing concern that some officers do not always respect the rights of citizens. Nevertheless, police misconduct is difficult to control, as it often occurs in small, local agencies with few resources and high levels of demand for service. There is not a national database for tracking police misconduct and only a few states have a comprehensive database that can identify emerging problems and trends (Gottschalk, 2016). Therefore, if agencies were more transparent about what their officers do, it would help them identify patterns of behavior.

There can be no proper examination of the matter without factoring in the influence that law enforcement authorities have. Police personnel are entrusted with a great deal of responsibility and authority and as such, they should adhere to stricter ethical standards. One issue that leads to police misbehavior is the absence of defined principles and standards among law enforcement bodies. Furthermore, racial/ethnic discrimination, prejudice, and bias are strong indicators of improper police behavior. Police brutality and misconduct in the United States has received a great deal of attention from civil rights groups, media and politicians over the past several decades. The topic is highly politicized and controversial, with critics arguing that police abuse is systemic in nature. Akinlabi (2017) also believe that police are given too much discretionary power in their operations and some measure of independence. Furthermore, there are many factors that can contribute to police misconduct. A common problem is the lack of transparency in the police department as well as a lack of accountability, especially within a small community. In some cases, the community may hold biases against certain ethnicities or religions, and these biases can be passed down to the police department. Bosse & Phillips (2016) suggest that this can lead to suspicion of minorities and improper arrest and detention of people who may or may not have committed a crime. Thus, this lack of transparency leads to the perception that there is no oversight in police departments with accountability for police misconduct.

Furthermore, several strategies have been proposed to combat police deviation, authority abuse, and corruption. Some examples include bettering police training and education, instituting more controls, and being more open and accountable. Furthermore, Vadera & Aguilera (2015) academics have also proposed that policing in the community and working with non-governmental groups may increase the public’s confidence in the police and provide the institution more legitimacy. Additionally, if police officers were more involved with the public and worked to better the quality of life in their communities, there may be fewer incidents of police misconduct overall.



Ultimately, the public’s trust, social justice, and human rights are all severely compromised when police officers violate the law, misuse their authority, or are corrupt. This article has examined the factors that contribute to police misbehavior, focusing on the underlying theories, legislation, and research results. In general, there is a great deal of effort put in place to help police forces improve overall and hold individual officers accountable for any crimes that they commit. However, the public still must have faith and trust in their police department and officers must respect their communities. Ultimately, police misconduct can be reduced through increased transparency, oversight mechanisms, training programs, and more.

Conclusion and recommendations

In conclusion, police misconduct is a problem that affects both society and the police departments themselves. Police officers are in a position of power, but they must adhere to certain standards and principles. If they do not, then the public’s trust will be severely compromised. Thus, the public’s trust should be kept in mind by policy makers and policemen. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies must engage in training and educational programs to help increase transparency, accountability and supervision. Also, law enforcement agencies should be held accountable for any misconduct they commit. There are some overt forms of police social control that have received much attention in the literature. In particular, there have been numerous policy recommendations in the literature on police use of force and other uses of force not involving the use of weapons or control over a person’s bodily movements or physical space (e.g., handcuffing, shoving, pushing). Greater attention has been paid to the legal standards governing the use of force or the threat that might be used to gain compliance. However, there are also forms of police social control that are covert or carried out through less overt means. This is evident in the literature review where much attention has been placed on racial profiling, traffic stops and searches, drug enforcement, and other uses of force not involving weapons or control over a person’s bodily movements or physical space.


Agbiboa, D. E. (2015). “Policing is not work: it is stealing by force”: corrupt policing and related abuses in every day. Africa today62(2), 95-126.

Akinlabi, O. M. (2017). Do the police really protect and serve the public? Police deviance and public cynicism towards the law. Criminology & Criminal Justice17(2), 158-174.

Boateng, F. D., Hsieh, M. L., & Pryce, D. K. (2022). Police criminality: Nature and extent of crimes committed by female police officers. Police Quarterly25(4), 415-442.

Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of management review41(2), 276-297.

Clinkinbeard, S. S., Solomon, S. J., & Rief, R. M. (2021). Why did you become a police officer? Entry-related motives and concerns of women and men in policing. Criminal Justice and Behavior48(6), 715-733.

Donner, C. M. (2019). “The best predictor of future behavior is…” examining the impact of past police misconduct on the likelihood of future misconduct. Journal of Crime and Justice42(3), 300-315.

Fridell, L. A., Maskaly, J., & Donner, C. M. (2021). The relationship between organisational justice and police officer attitudes toward misconduct. Policing and society31(9), 1081-1099.

Gottschalk, P. (2016). Private policing of financial crime: Fraud examiners in white-collar crime investigations. International Journal of Police Science & Management18(3), 173-183.

Gottschalk, P. (2018). Opportunistic behavior in the principal–agent model of policing: The case of a convicted field officer in Norway. International Journal of Police Science & Management20(2), 109-115.

Kraut, R. (2002). Aristotle: political philosophy. Oxford University Press on Demand.,+Aristotle+&ots=dOwxpuFXSf&sig=LmvX5DU7yiZslRLAVbQIwFqGOQg

Porter, L. E. (2013). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing.

Santas, G. (Ed.). (2008). the Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. John Wiley & Sons.,+Plato+pdf&ots=WkqWeM5-V4&sig=KwxViMiIlU2ooimZkrEQU3U9do0

Vadera, A. K., & Aguilera, R. V. (2015). The evolution of vocabularies and its relation to investigation of white-collar crimes: An institutional work perspective. Journal of Business Ethics128, 21-38.