28% of reported crime in the uk leads to a conviction.
1.4% of cases reported to the ipcc result in action being taken against an officer (either disciplinary or more).
comparing conviction rates to reporting an officer is not comparing like with like now is it. You are not even comparing people charged or questioned with conviction rates which would be more appropriate. you are comapring convictions with allegations whilst criticising my logic 😯
Furthermore I would hazard a guess that a number of lieing unscrupulous criminals make unfounded claims to aid their defence or because they are crims. They cannot really be relied in as a good witness so I would expect a lower success rate tbh.
Does this mean that the police are a special breed of ultra law abiding people? I find it hard, nay impossible to believe the the police force does not represent a cross section of society. To me I am suspicious that ipcc is not as independent as it should be. I’m not looking for 28% but 1.4% is very very sniffy.
You probably get a certain type in the police force perhaps more authoritarian and conforming. As they get sacked for breaking the law I would assume it is reasonable to assume they have fewer law breakers than society in general due to the implications of a conviction.
You may get more caring folk in nursing , more aggressive folk in the army etc. i would not necessarily expect any profession to match society exactly. I would also expect less lawlessness in say lawyers or solicitors for similar reasons.
The IPCC probably is a bit pro police though
