How do they decide what makes a good police officer? On what criteria do they base their judgements? How does the selection process work?
And, why are some accepted and others rejected?

Any thoughts?

foxy, there is a psychological profile which they aim for. i'm not sure how successful they are in filling it.

when i came here in the early 70's, the then premier of nsw admitted that the desired recruit was an ignorant boofhead who wouldn't rock the boat when he noticed that the sergeant, the police commisioner, and the premier were all crooked. he did use different language, naturally.

Demos,

According to my brother - that's not far from the truth. He had a friend who wanted to join the force in Victoria. He and three other guys passed all the tests extremely well. They were even recommended by one of their examiners. But no, they didn't get in. Three other guys - who didn't do well in the tests at all - were the ones selected. Go figure.

Foxy, As and Interstate Truck Driver I deal on a weekly if not daily basis with the ones who do make it through the selection process.
Let's just say I'm pretty sure from what I meet that ethics is not part of the criteria.....

A far better question I believe is what criteria for judges? The many police I have known vary greatly in their world views. You have your Victorian force which is highly feminised and quite useless in situations that require a bit of muscle. On the other hand you had the NSW Police in the 70's who often used excessive force. Most of the judges have one thing in common (ie. favour the criminal ahead of the victim). Often the Police end up totally frustrated because judges allow fancy lawyers to get guilty people let off crimes despite multitudes of previous offences.

An extract from a speech on, "The selection of Judges for Commonwealth Courts 10Aug07"
THE HON SIR GERARD BRENNAN AC KBE EX-HIGH COURT CHIEF-JUSTICE
In totalitarian societies, on the other hand, the legislature might retain the power to interpret its laws, the repositories of state executive power are authorized to enforce the law as they see it without judicial supervision and the judiciary is directed to decide cases in accordance with state policy. Experience elsewhere and our own history have shown that that kind of self-regulation is incompatible with the rule-of-law. The rule-of-law means that the law as defined by independent and impartial courts is applied by the judiciary or under judicial supervision.
We should be clear about how judges implement the rule of law. The rule-of-law is not the same as rule-by-law. It may be that Nazi Germany was ruled-by-law, many of Hitler's heinous policies being implemented by courts which applied laws framed in accordance with the prevailing ideology. The rule-of-law, on the other hand, seeks to do justice according-to-law. The judge is not a juridical robot. He or she may have to make value judgments in which common sense and an appreciation of community standards play a part: was the defendant negligent? Was the conduct dishonest? What is in the best interests of a child? What is the appropriate sentence to impose? Sometimes, particularly in the higher courts, a judgment has to be made on more technical or complicated issues: do the facts attract one rule of law or another? What is the meaning of an ambiguous statute? Should an earlier precedent be distinguished in the present circumstances? How should I exercise my discretion? A judge's active participation in the process is an integral element in, an essential characteristic of, the rule-of-law. In a secure democracy, public confidence in the judiciary is critical to the rule-of-law. That is, confidence in the selection of the best judges available and confidence in their competent and impartial application of the law. Both the public and the existing judiciary have a vital interest in the process and the outcome of selecting judges.