The effect of Corruption has many dimensions related to political, economic, social and environmental effects.  In political sphere, corruption impedes democracy and the rule of law. In a democratic system, public institutions and offices may lose their legitimacy when they misuse their power for private interest. Corruption may also result in negative consequences such as encoring cynicism and reducing interest of political participation , political instability , reducing political competition, reducing the transparency of political decision making, distorting political development and sustaining political activity based on patronage, clienteles and money, etc. In Social sphere, corruption discourages people to work together for the common good. Frustration and general apathy among the public result in a weak civil society. Demanding and paying bribes becomes the tradition. It also results in social inequality and widened gap between the rich and poor, civil strive, increased poverty and lack of basic needs like food, water and drugs, jealousy and hatred and insecurity. Government Corruption is a global phenomenon found in all countries - but

evidence shows it harms poor people more than others, stifles economic growth and diverts desperately needed funds from education, healthcare and other public services. An estimated one trillion US dollars get siphoned off through bribes every year according to the World Bank.

Residents of states with more Government Corruption may not only lose trust in political officials, but also have less trust in the general public, according to a new study by Sean Richey, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University. Richey studied arrests of government officials in 50 states combined with 2002 through 2004 survey data of the American National Election Studies panel, which produces data on voting, public opinion and political participation."Stories of political corruption are constantly in the media, and this research reveals that Governmental Corruption has large corrosive effects on civil society," Richey said. "I find that increases in corruption in the period before the survey was taken leads to decreases in belief that Government officials and ordinary citizens are trustworthy. It was the first empirical test of this concept." The findings show that people living in a state with more convictions for felony corruption from the previous two year period had a negative effect on generalized trust. The study also shows that people in the middle-aged generation and people who volunteer are associated with an increase in trust, while having conservative ideology and media usage correlate with decreased levels of trust.

COST OF Government CORRUPTION 

Various micro-studies reviewed by the authors unmistakably suggest that the efficiency costs of corruption could be quite severe, as corruption may jack up the marginal tax rate of firms, decrease business activity, raise the marginal costs of public funds and render certain government projects economically unviable.

An interesting estimate of the efficiency costs due to distortion is the allocation of capital from state banks, the authors point out, citing a study that politically connected firms, defined as those with a politician on their boards, received 45-per-cent larger loans from government banks in spite of having a 50-per-cent higher default rates on these loans.

 

The ruling by the most senior judges in England and Wales says that the current police policy of indefinitely keeping DNA profiles of people arrested but never convicted is excessive and violates privacy rights. Chief constables have continued collecting the DNA profiles of everyone arrested, whether they are convicted or not, and keeping them indefinitely on a national database. This is despite a ruling by the European court of human rights more than three years ago that it was a breach of privacy rights. More than 200,000 new DNA profiles of innocent people have been added to the national police DNA database since the ruling that their blanket retention was unlawful in February 2008, bringing the total to more than 1.1 million."It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further."Two of the seven judges in the case dissented, saying the appeals should have been dismissed when Local Police Breaking The Law. The ruling was brought following an appeal by GC, who was released without charge after being arrested for a suspected assault on his girlfriend in 2007 and C, who was acquitted of rape allegations in 2009.Their requests for the DNA profiles and fingerprints to be destroyed were refused by the Met commissioner. The new legislation is going through parliament in the protection of freedoms bill proposed by the home secretary, Theresa May. If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules. 5 rules according police

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police. If you saw any Local Police Breaking The Law then inform the authority.

Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police

In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)

Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say” 

When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.

Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.
Local Police Breaking The Law is the biggest problem in these day's.