Several corruption scandals involving police, judges, or other law enforcement officials seem to surface every year in the United States. Inevitably, the official explanation is that such corruption is an individualized phenomenon involving a few “rotten apples.” Thomas Wicker, a Louisiana judge, in commenting on the large number of charges brought against judges in the last few years, claimed, for instance, that “most judges are honest and conscientious. The discipline process is taking care of a few bad apples” (Gest 1983, p. 42). Similarly, recent police corruption in Miami produced the following explanation: “Investigators say they believe that only a small percentage of Dade County’s police officers are involved in criminal activity. But authorities agree that even a few bad apples is more than enough” (emphasis added, Anderson and Prout 1985, p. 32). Yet, every detailed study of corruption in law enforcement rejects this “bad apple” theory of corruption. Thus, New York City’s Knapp Commission concluded that “police corruption was found to be an extensive, department wide phenomenon, indulged in to some degree by a sizable majority of those on the force” (1972, p. 61), despite a virtually “official Department doctrine” that “any policeman found to be corrupt must promptly be denounced as a rotten apple in an otherwise clean barrel” (1972, p. 6).’ In all likelihood, the corruption that is exposed each year reveals only a small part of the illegal activities by law enforcement officials. After all, these are only the ones who get caught. Even if a similar number of crimes by public officials were cleared by arrest as crimes in general, the total level of corruption would be substantial. But there are several reasons to believe that the crimes corrupt public officials commit are considerably less likely to be exposed than private sector crime. Indeed, corruption is a direct consequence of the incentives that law enforcement officials face. An alternative to the rotten apple theory of corruption is offered here, one that emphasizes these institutionalized incentives. Corruption by law enforcement officials is a black market for the property rights over which those officials have been given discretionary allocative power (Benson 1981a).2 This discretion arises because of the common pool characteristics of law enforcement resources. It means that rather than assigning rights in reflection of political demands, rights can be sold to the highest bidder. Police, judges, and prosecutors are not monitored closely, again because of incentives arising from common pool problems, so self-interest may dominate and corruption results.