Ask Lemmy

I want qualified people, not popular people.

See coroner's vs. medical examiners. One is a fucked up way of doing things.

In the U.S. sheriffs ARE elected and it's a bit of a nightmare. They do not need to be qualified as long as people vote for them. They are not accountable to anyone but the majority of voters. They can violate rights, plant evidence, murder. It doesn't matter if all those actions are public knowledge as long as people continue to vote for them. And that may sound absurd, but there are plenty of examples of sheriffs doing whatever the hell they want but continuing to get elected.

There are horror stories of child murdering serial killers going free for decades due the the incompetence of sheriffs.

It's a lot harder to organize a recall election than to just fire a corrupt or incompetent law enforcement officials.

We already elect ours, and it is a clusterfuck. Elections need to have public interest or they just become a contest to see who can whip the most weirdos into the booth.

Where I am, the sheriffs are elected and the police chiefs are (generally) appointed. Honestly, both get up to the same level of mischief. The problem isn't how they get to the position, but rather accountability. There isn't much. It's a mismatch between the amount of power they hold and the responsibility to which they are held.

Elected sheriffs are the .most corrupt people you'll ever meet. Total shit show.

We should work on the "accountable to the people" part first. I don't see that presumption reflected in reality where they are elected.

This is an x-y problem. You are asking about methods of placement when your actual concern is methods of accountability. Choosing someone else in the next election isn't accountability, it's a flimsy escape mechanism. Both methods of placement won't be able to correct for a bad actor without further protections from independent/external authority.

They should be subject to a citizens police review board.

Like that's ever going to happen.

The government has a monopoly on force. That force should be weilded by the fairest and most impartial people possible. Police, investigation agencies, etc., should be as free from bias as possible.

Now, you have multiple ways to get to that point, and people have different opinions on the purest way to achieve this. But, electing them doesn't seem to be the way. Tyranny of the majority is too strong. And appointment by elected officials is equally problematic. So how then does a system establish that is not subject to abuse by those with power?

I would argue that the best system for appointing law enforcement seems to be via a benevolent dictator or monarch or their representatives. And it only works for their lifetime, unless the inertia of the benevolent institution can be sustained. Well, it's a crapshoot but stable at least for the lifetime of the monarch or similar.

I'd also entertain citizen lotteries for these sorts of positions. But that's a crapshoot on shorter timeframes.

This shouldn't be a political position, but an appointed civil servant one. You want the criminal justice to work on a reliable way through the country, and not let any populist politician apply their own exotic method.

I believe the US has tons of exemple of bad sheriffs but good speakers doing more harms than good

In my opinion they should be appointed and be accountable to the law. There should be good oversight, and an independent body that investigates allegations of misbehaviour. Elections would just make it a popularity contest.

I think it's a good idea to abolish them.

The police should not exist