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.

Rent and watch the movie Idiocracy and get ready for the new Australian
way.

"How do they decide what makes a good police officer? On what criteria do they base their judgements? How does the selection process work?"

Somewhat off topic, however, you would have to also ask that question about officers in other government departments.

I refer to officers (senior bureaucrats) and their excessive discretionary powers when enforcing the Environmental Protection Act (or failing to).

Or officers employed in the Departments' of Industry and Resources.

These officers will go after the little guy (good public relations) and fail to prosecute those recidivist offenders who constantly breach laws enacted to protect the environment or the occupational safety or health of workers and surrounding communities.

The excessive discretionary powers of bureaucrats in those departments have created a culture where conflicts of interest are now the norm and these departments are constantly in breach of their own Acts.

What's worse, these senior bureaucrats often become employed in the industries which they once "regulated" without a requirement for a time lapse between tenures to eliminate a potential conflict of interest.

But then good "cops" and good men and women know that blowing the whistle on moral and ethical pygmies is no easy endeavour.

A few years ago I lived and worked in the United States.( Los Angeles to be precise). The husband of a friend of mine joined the Los Angeles Police Department. Graduating from the Academy was tough - not only mentally, but physically. Anyway, his first assignment was the Black - ghetto area of Watts. Well the physical change in this man was incredible. His hair turned white - within that year - he aged by about ten years and he wouldn't talk about his work.

After our return to Melbourne - I learnt that he had risen to the rank of Detective, had received a medal of valour (saving a family from a burning building), and was working with street kids.

I suppose - you can't always fully understand a situation unless you're actually living it yourself. I don't mean to sound like Pollyana here - and of course there's rotten apples in every barrel -
but when you're in trouble - who do you call?

I share your concerns about departmental law enforcement Dickie. It seems that wherever resources are spread too thin (and when doesn’t that apply?) fairness gets compromised.

There is a tendency to concentrate on some offenders while others are given the blind-eye treatment. Easy cases are pursued while more complicated ones are let go, regardless of significance.

This means is that the public can be badly misled. If we see a certain party get away with something, we can reasonably assume that the authorities have condoned or tolerated it. But then we may well find a ton of sh!t heaped upon us if we try it. Thus an unfair playing field is created where the players don’t really know the effective rules.

Those who strictly abide by the rules are put at a competitive disadvantage to those who push the limits, which creates a strong impetus to push the limits amongst those who would otherwise be quite happy to operate comfortably within the law!

So what’s different with the police force? Nothing.

The core of the problem is a lack of resources, which is unforgeable in a time of great economic prosperity. Of course, strong economic growth should be steadily improving the standard of policing, along with all manner of other services. But in most instances increases in resources fail to keep the same standard of service up to an ever-increasing population.

‘Unforgeable’! Pffffff (:>|

That should be ‘unforgivable’.

"That should be ‘unforgivable’."

Ah now I get your drift Ludwig and concur with your opinion.

However, the lack of resources is the common excuse used by government departmental bureaucrats when they are exposed for their incompetence.

The public have also been duped into believing that the "lack of resources" is always to blame for the mismanagement by senior officials in government departments where their inactions have the potential to place community members at grave risk.

Statistics reveal that in 2007, Western Australia's population had increased from 2005 by 2.2% - some 44,000 additional residents.

Yet regional police stations are closing, despite the state government's obscene budget surplus.

With planned increases in Australia's population, I would say: "Hang onto your hat guys, we're in for a rocky ride."

Budget surpluses are not being used for the good of the public.

By the way, despite the "lack of resources" for the "overworked" public servants, don't bother ringing those departments I alluded to any day after 5.00pm. Tain't nobody there!

Maybe the police officers are under Howard's new workchoice agreements?
- so - come 5pm - they're up, up, and away...If their employers don't show any loyalty and consideration - I guess they reckon -
why should they