3 ms·
It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt
by quantumhobbit 18y ago
It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt cop because that is normal. People learn to accept what is all around them. Part of culture is what is tolerated and what isn't. It's a Catch-22.
The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.
- netcan 18y agoThere's is also a feedback effect when it becomes so entrenched that everyone has participated in it. It's one thing to pay a bribe to a cop to avoid trouble. It's another to seek out someone to put a stamp on something so that you do ABC. When corruption is the system, most people reach that point. A large number of (basically decent) people also reach the point where they are actually accepting black money. That would definitely accelorate tolerance.