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
Is there a reason why this same logic doesn’t apply to politicians?
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
Cops don’t even keep the peace. What peace is there to be had if you have no money? The cops are trained to deal violence on behalf of the rich. Their training and experience is inextricably linked to the objective of preserving capitalism, and is therefore useless for whatever comes afterward.
For these reasons, we need to fully abolish the police while simultaneously establishing alternative systems outside and in opposition to the State to keep each other safe.
Never capitulate to right-wing framings.
I don’t think defunding the police is a right-wing framing 😆
I argue that it is, in fact, a right-wing framing 😁. It’s a liberal framing, and liberals are right-wing.
“Defunding the police” is a liberal distortion of “abolishing the police”. Defunding the police uncritically reinforces the notion that police are a necessary part of a free society, but only need to be “debloated”. The militarization of police is not a bug; it’s a feature! It’s the police evolving into exactly what they are meant to be.
And the defunding the police issue perfectly reveals why liberals are right-wing: because liberals do not object to capitalism. The primary purpose of police is to deploy violence against the subjects in order to maintain capitalism—an oppression liberals have no problem with. Sure they are the left-wing of capital in the United States, but that still makes them right-wing in the large because they advocate for the unjustifiable hierarchy of capitalism and the existence of police to enforce that power.
