Politicians routinely negate and modify the formal normative boundary by encouraging aggressive police practices and imputing a war-like orientation to crime control. Police officials shape the normative system by characterizing deviance by officers as an aberration, by relying on unstated organizational customs rather than the formal policies of the agency, and by creating obstacles that inhibit establishing accountability to citizens. The judiciary promotes police deviance by failing to penalize police deviance adequately. Ambiguities in the criminal law also contribute to police deviance by allowing the police broad discretion on when and how to invoke the force of criminal law. Instead of viewing acts of police deviance as isolated incidents, it is often the case that deviance is an organized behavior which is related to the networking of individuals in and outside of the contexts of the organization.
Police often engage in deviant acts as members of both formal and informal associations.
Police deviance involves transactions where officers learn the techniques to carry out deviant acts, as well as the roles they are to play in the deviant activity. Deviant police serve in various positions in both formal and informal deviant groups. Police who engage in deviant acts are often supported in their corrupt activities by other members of the organization. Few acts of police deviance are carried out in total isolation. Because of the configuration of associations, transactions, and the various forms of police deviance, it may be impossible to introduce any change to an organization that is literally gridlocked with deviance and corruption.