-

Abstract

In police administration, the main agenda of police seniors-rather than their personnel in their command- is to fullfill tasks very efficient and effective which are defined with the certain legal texts. However, the “human” element” is the very first subject which has to be considered in the police administration like in the other disciplines. The police whose task is to provide security are the ones who are socially interacting with the society whom they are serving. In this interaction their perceptions of society is very important. That perception accommodates such police sub-culture elements like auhoritarian personality, machismoism, suspiciousness, ferocity, solidarity, conservatism, confidentiality, alienation and social isolation. When those elements are examined in detail, it can be understood that they go on to exist with the casualty among each other. The cynicism which occurs in these kinds of relations is a negative behavior which is very common among police personnel and is created by the perception which has a relation with not only their interactions with the society but also with their personality.From this point of view, cynicism is a organizational chronic illness whose treatment could not be found so far. Therefore in this article the location of cynicism in police behavioral models as a negative behavior of personnel who are working in police services and why its treatment could not be found will be focused on by taking the “human” element as a base

Keywords

• Policing, Police cynicism, Police behavior, Police Personality

POLİSLİĞİN KRONİK HASTALIĞI: KİNİZM

Öz

Özet: Polis Yönetiminde, genel olarak yöneticilerin ana gündemi, emirlerinde çalışan personelden çok, belirli kanuni metinlerle tanımlanan polislik görevlerinin en etkin ve verimli şekilde yerine getirilmesidir. Oysaki “insan” unsuru diğer tüm disiplinlerde olduğu gibi polis yönetiminde de her yönüyle değerlendirilmesi gereken bir konudur. Görevi, güvenliği sağlamak olan polis çalışanları hizmet ettikleri toplumla yoğun olarak sosyal etkileşimde bulunan kişilerdir. Bu etkileşim içerisinde topluma ve o toplumu meydana getiren bireylere yönelik algıları çok önemlidir. Bu algı, kendi içerisinde birçok alt öğeyi de barındırmakta, bu öğeler ise nedensellik bağına dayalı olarak bir sarmal içerisinde varlıklarını devam ettirmektedirler. Bu tür bir öğe ağının oluşumu neticesinde meydana gelen kinizm,  polis personeli arasında yaygın olan, onların meslekle olan etkileşimlerinin yanı sıra kişilik özellikleri ile de ilişkisi bulunan bir algının meydana getirdiği olumsuz bir davranış çeşididir. Bu yönüyle kinizm polislik açısından tedavisi henüz bulunamamış, örgütsel kronik bir hastalıktır. Bu nedenle bu makalede, temelde “insan” unsuru olmak üzere, polislik hizmetlerinde çalışan personelin genel bir olumsuz davranışı olarak “kinizm”in alt öğeleri ile soruna neden çare bulunamadığı üzerinde durulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Polislik, Polis Kinizmi, Polis Davranışı, Polis Kişiliği

Kaynakça

1. ADORNO, Theodor W. ve diğ. (1993) “The Auhoritarian Personality: Studies in Prejudice”, New York, W.W. Norton Company
2. ALTHUSSER, Louis, (2010) İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları, (Alp Tümertekin Çev.), 4.Baskı, İstanbul, İthaki Yayınevi.
3. BALCH, Robert W. (1972) “The Police Personality: Fact or Fiction?”, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Volume: 63, No:1, pp. 106-119.
4. BAYLEY, David H.(1985) Patterns of Policing: A comparative International Analysis, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press.
5. BEHREND, Kenneth R. (1980) “Police Cynicism - A Cancer in Law Enforcement?”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Volume:49 Issue:8, pp. 1-4
6. BRANHAM, R.Bracht, GOULET-CAZE, Marie-Odile. (1996) The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, University of California Press, London.
7. CAPLAN, Joel. (2003) “Police Cynicism: Police Surviving Tool?”, Police Journal, Volume:76, pp.304-313.
8. CENTEL, Nur, ZAFER, Hamide. (2010) Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, İstanbul, Beta yayınları

9. CLARK, John P. (1965). “Isolation of The Police: A Comparison of The British And American Situations”, The Journal of Criminal, Criminology and Police Science, Volume:56, No:3, pp.307- 319.
10. COLMAN, Andrew M., GORMAN, L.Paul. (1982) “Conservatism, Dogmatism and Authoritarianism in British Police Officers”, Sociology, Volume: 16, Issue: 1, pp. 1-11.
11. DİNÇER, Ömer. (1992) Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politikası, İstanbul, Beta Yayınları.
12. DODD, David J. (1967) “Police Mentality and Behavior”, Issues in Criminology, Volume:3, No:1, pp.47-67
13. DURKHEIM, Emile. (2006) Toplumsal İşbölümü, (Çeviren: Özer Ozankaya), Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul.
14. FİLİZ, Orhan (2010) “Emniyet Teşkilatında Kadınların İstihdamı ve Kadın Polis Algısı”, Polis Teşkilatında İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, (H.Hüseyin Çevik ve diğ Ed.), Ankara, Polis Akademisi Yayınları, ss.155-178.
15. GORDON, Richard G. (2005) Personality, London,Routledge. GRAVES, Wallace. (1996) “Police Cynicism: Causes and Cures”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, No:65, pp.16-20.
16. HOBBS, Ben. (2008) “What Causes Police Officers to Become Cynical? Is There Any Dislocation Between Themes in Literature on Police Cynicism and Police Officers in Contemporary Society?”, Internet Journal of Criminology, pp.1-33.
17. İSTİHBARAT DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (2015) “İnsan Kaynakları”, “erişim adresi http://www. istihbarat.pol.tr/Sayfalar/Insan-Kaynaklari.aspx), (erişim tarihi: 06 Nisan 2015)
18. KAYNAK, Tuğray. (1990) Organizasyonel Davranış, İstanbul. LANE, Julie D., WEGNER, Daniel M. (1995) “The Cognitive Consequences of Secrecy”, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume: 69, Issue: 2, 237-253.
19. LESTER, David. (1981) “A Typology of Police Officers Based Upon A Personality Test: A Research Note”, American Journal of Police, Volume: 1, No: 1, pp.69-75
20. MELVILLE LEE, William L. (1901), A History of Police in Enland, London, Methuen And Co.
21. MOFOMME, Thabo J. (2001) “Culture in South African Police Services”, Crime Search in South Africa, Volume:3, No: 3.
22. NEOCLEOUS, Mark (2014) Savaş Erki Polis Erki, (Çeviren: Beyza Sümer Aydaş), Notabene yayınları, Ankara.
23. NICKELS, Ernest L., VERMA, Arvind (2008) “Dimensions of Police Culture: A study in Canada, India and Japan”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Volume:31, No: 2, pp. 186-209
24. NIEDERHOFFER, Arthur (1967) Behind the Shield, Anchor Books, Garden City. OSBORNE, Randall (2014) “Observations on Police Cynicism: Some Preliminary Findings”, North American Journal of Psychology, Volume: 16, No: 3, pp. 607-628.
25. PERRIER, David C.. (1979) “Is Policing a Profession?”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Issue:52, pp.52-70.
26. POLİS MEMURU, “Polisin Güven Duygusu” konulu Kişisel Görüşme, (15 Şubat 2015).
27. POLİS VAZİFE VE SELAHİYETLERİ KANUNU (1934), T.C Resmi Gazete, 2751, 4 Temmuz 1934
28. POOLE, Eric D., REGOLI, Robert M., LOTZ, Roy. (1978) “Linkages Between Professionalism, Work Alienation and Cynicism in Large and Small Police Departments, Social Sciences Quarterly, Volume: 59, No: 3, pp.525-534.
29. REGOLI, Robert M., CRANK, John P., CULBETRSON, Robert G., POOLE, Eric D. (1987) “Rejoinder-Police Cynicism: Theory Development and Reconstruction”, Justica Quarterly, Volume:4, No:2, pp.281-286.
30. REINER, Robert. (1992) The Politics of The Police, Great Britain, University of Toronto Press.
31. SKOLNICK, Jerome H.. (1966) Justice Without Trial: Law in Democratic Society, New York, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
32. SMITH, William (1870), “Diogenes”, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mytology, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
33. STEAD, Philip J. (1983), The Police of France , New York: Macmillan Publishing Company
34. STOKOLS, Daniel (1975) “Toward a Psychological Theory of Alienation”, Psychological Review, Volume:82, No.:1, pp. 26-44.
35. SWANTON, Bruce. (1981) “Social Isolation of Police: Structural Determinants and Remedies”, Police Studies,  Volume:3 Issue:4,pp.14-21.
36. TARHAN, A.Haluk. (2001). “Poliste Sosyalleşme”, Çağın Polisi Dergisi, Sayı:9.
37. TAUBER, Ronald K. (1967) “Danger and The Police: A Theoretical Analysis, Issues in Criminology, Volume:3, No:1, pp.69-81.
38. TAYMUR, İbrahim, TÜRKÇAPAR, M. Hakan. (2012) “Kişilik: Tanımı, Sınıflaması ve Değerlendirmesi”, Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, Cilt: 4, Sayı:2, ss.154-177.
39. TWERSKY-GLASNER, Aviva. (2005) “Police Personality: What is it and Why Are They Like That?”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Volume: 20, Issue: 1, pp.56- 67.
40. WEBER, Max. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, California, University of California Press.
41. WHITE, John T., RIDDLE, John E. (1872) Latin-English Dictionary, 4th Edition, London, Longmans, Green and Co,.
42. WORDEN, Robert E. (1995) “Police Officers’ Belief Systems: A Framework For Analysis”, American Journal of Police, Volume: 14, No:1, pp. 49-81.