Police chiefs often struggle with the appropriate level of discipline to impose upon sustained violations of policy and procedures. As a law enforcement professional of more than 28 years and having taught internal affairs investigations for more than 12 years, I often hear the question, “What is a fair and just level of punitive discipline for a sustained complaint against one of my officers?”

I can certainly attest that adjudication hearings regarding policy or procedure violations in law enforcement are rarely about whether the employee committed the violation, but rather focus on the severity of discipline imposed. What can a law enforcement executive do to support and defend the decision on the level of punitive action handed out within the framework of being fair and just while not necessarily equal?

Police Discipline Ideology

Police discipline is a crucial component of law enforcement, ensuring officers maintain the highest standards of conduct. However, one often misunderstood aspect of police discipline is the notion that while it strives to be fair and consistent, it is rarely equal. The principles guiding police discipline, such as the use of discipline matrices and Douglas factors, help to ensure that discipline is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of each case.

Understanding Fairness and Consistency in Police Discipline

The core objectives of police discipline are to maintain public trust, reinforce organizational standards, and correct behavior that is inconsistent with the values of law enforcement. Fairness in this context means that every officer is subject to the same rules and that their actions are judged based on these established standards. Consistency ensures that similar violations are met with similar consequences, preventing arbitrary or biased disciplinary actions. However, fairness and consistency do not necessarily equate to equality in the discipline meted out. The concept of equality would imply that all officers, regardless of the specifics of their cases, would receive the same disciplinary measures for similar offenses. This approach, while seemingly just, overlooks the complex realities of each situation and the individual factors that may influence an officer’s behavior.

The Role of Discipline Matrices

Discipline matrices are tools used by police departments to standardize the disciplinary process. These matrices categorize various types of misconduct and outline corresponding disciplinary actions, providing a framework for decision-making. They serve as a guide to ensure that discipline is administered consistently across the board, considering the severity of the offense and any mitigating or aggravating factors. For example, a discipline matrix might prescribe a range of penalties for an officer found guilty of misconduct, such as a reprimand, suspension, or termination. The exact penalty within this range is determined by considering the specifics of the case, ensuring that the discipline is not only consistent with past decisions but also fair in relation to the circumstances of the incident.

The Influence of the Douglas Factors

The Douglas factors, named after a 1981 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board case, provide a set of criteria that police executives can use to evaluate the appropriate level of discipline in each case. ¹ These factors include considerations such as the nature and seriousness of the offense, the officer’s past disciplinary record, the impact of the misconduct on the department’s reputation, and the potential for rehabilitation. The Douglas factors are:

1. The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee’s duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated.

2. The employee’s job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public, and prominence of the position.

3. The employee’s past disciplinary record.

4. The employee’s past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability.

5. The effect of the offense upon the employee’s ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors’ confidence in the employee’s ability to perform assigned duties.

6. Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses.

7. Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties.

8. The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency.

9. The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question.

10. Potential for the employee’s rehabilitation.

11. Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice, or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter.

12. The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others.

The courts have left decisions on the level of discipline imposed by law enforcement executives stand when they are decided upon based on a methodology of being fair and reasonable, as evidenced below:

When applying these factors, the “determination of an appropriate penalty is a matter committed primarily to the sound discretion of the employing agency. The role of the [governing body on determining final discipline] is not to insist that the balance be struck precisely where the board would choose to strike it if the board were in the agency’s shoes in the first instance.” ² Instead, the question is whether “managerial judgment has been properly exercised within the tolerable limits of reasonableness.” ³

In Sutton v. Civil Service Com. 91 Ill. 2d 404, 411 (1982), the Illinois Supreme Court stated:

“The question, though, is not whether this court would decide upon a more lenient sanction than discharge were it to determine initially what discipline would be appropriate. Nor is it whether this court would conclude in view of the mitigating circumstances suggested by Sutton that a different penalty would be more appropriate. The question is whether, in view of the circumstances presented, this court can say that the Civil Service Commission, in opting for discharge, acted unreasonably or arbitrarily or selected a type of discipline unrelated to the needs of the service.”

The application of the Douglas factors, in conjunction with a disciplinary matrix, enables police executives to tailor disciplinary actions to the specific circumstances of each case. This structured methodology helps reduce subjectivity in the decision-making process and provides a clear, defensible framework for justifying disciplinary outcomes in legal proceedings. This approach ensures that the discipline is fair and reasonable, considering both the specifics of the offense and the individual officer’s history and intent. As a result, two officers who commit similar infractions might receive different penalties if their situations differ in meaningful ways.

Why Equality Is Not Always the Goal

While equality in disciplinary actions might seem desirable, it can lead to unjust outcomes if applied without considering the nuances of each case. Treating all officers the same, without regard to the context of their actions, could result in disproportionate punishment or fail to adequately address the underlying issues that led to the misconduct.

For instance, an officer with a long history of exemplary service might receive a lighter penalty for a first-time offense compared to an officer with a history of repeated infractions. This differentiation acknowledges the broader context of each officer’s career and behavior and examining the incident through fact-based lens (i.e., totality of the circumstances), ensuring that discipline is not only consistent but also just.

Conclusion

Police discipline, guided by discipline matrices and the application of the Douglas factors, is designed to be fair and consistent, though not necessarily equal. The goal is to ensure that discipline is proportionate, reasonable, and tailored to the unique circumstances of each case. Ultimately, the use of disciplinary matrices coupled with the application of the Douglas Factors provides law enforcement executives with a court-tested methodology for determining a reasonable level of discipline to be imposed for violations of policy and procedure. Ultimately, by recognizing that fairness and consistency do not always equate to equality, police executives can better uphold the standards of their departments while fostering an environment of accountability and integrity.

This article first appeared in IADLEST Standards & Training Director Magazine, June 2025 Edition.

CHIEF JOSEPH P. MITCHELL is assistant village manager of Oak Brook, Illinois, USA. After 27 years of service, he retired as police chief from Orland Park, Illinois, USA, in 2022.

Endnotes and Resources

¹ Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981)

² Norris v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 675 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations and punctuation omitted)

³ Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 302 (1981)