Organizational leadership
really matters. Imagine being a law-abiding person who joins an organization that's run by organized crime. Most of your colleagues are decent law-abiding people, but a few are thugs. And when those thugs hurt people, leadership pours all its resources into supporting and shielding
them from consequences. When you (a law-abiding employee) try to report a thug for misbehavior, your leadership supports the thug over you or even drums you out of the organization.
Do you think this would be a sustainable organization? Should the general population look at a given representative and think "90% probability this is a good person" or should they think "10% probability this person is a violent thug who can hurt or kill me with impunity, and in any group of ten reps one might try to kill me and the others will look the other way?" What is the right way to engage with an organization like that? And over time is this organization going to reform itself, or is it increasingly going to attract bad people and drive away the decent ones?
There's a lot at stake here. Recent anti-accountability political activism by police leadership and union bosses is really scary and counterproductive stuff even if most cops are fundamentally decent.