6 ms·

>What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff... appoints everyone on it? Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on th

>What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff... appoints everyone on it? Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board?

csdreamer7 2y ago
> Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board? Not sure what the point of this argument is. The mayor could appoint someone. The public can directly elect someone. Why is Florida making the boards charged with oversight of the police can only be appointed by the sheriff? It does not sound like a 'citizen review board' but it does sounds very prone to corruption.
- Phiwise_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - simiones 2y ago
    Would you think it's a good idea if there were a Presidential Review Board that is named by the President? After all he/she is elected by the people! The whole point of a review board is to be independent of the authority it is supposed to review. So, a police review board mustn't be selected by a member of the police forces, even an elected one.
    - Phiwise_ 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      While what you're describing is a bad model when you want independent review, its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work. The FAA, USDA, NTSB, etc all regulate industry by quite often asking the industry what regulations are needed and how to enforce them. Its common for industry to even be expected to enforce regulations on themselves, leaving us with situations like Boeing.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work I think there's a seachange in sentiment reflected in this thread that says these norms should be revised.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        I'll be very happy if that's a broad sentiment reaching beyond HN. Our regulatory agencies are worse for all of us when they're owned and operated by industry. A peaceful change seems really, really tricky. Its so much easier to create regulations than remove them. Congress would have to ignore industry money and want to push through change, these agencies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and industry would have to deal with all the churn without cracking our economy since GDP and employment numbers seem to be the only things that really matter to our executive branch.
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        Drugs are approved largely by asking the company that patented it if is safe.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Yes they are, and I'd you read the studies given as evidence of safety and efficacy they're almost entirely garbage.
  - smolder 2y ago
    I'm not the previous poster, but the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question. No citizen with a brain is going to select police to review their own behavior, even if they are selecting them to do policing. In fact, I don't think you're unclear on anything: you're just attempting to direct people away from the actual issue with some bad-faith feigned ignorance.
    - Phiwise_ 2y ago
      >the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question [about power derived from elections]. Do they not belong because they are untrue, or perhaps because they make your taking exception to their argument incoherent? Nah, it must be that everyone who disagrees with you on the internet has no brain in bad faith.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - happymellon 2y ago
    It would be a board of citizens. Otherwise you are suggesting a Police Review Board, aka Internal Audit which already exists.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    because a citizen review board is supposed to be representative of the citizenry, not a group of people appointed by the person/thing they are reviewing. Many jurisidictions have rules around the composition, so not just "anybody" can BE on the board, but typically anybody can TRY to be on the board. Example: the legislation could state "a member from the city/town council, and n members of the public" or something similar, intended to promote broad oversight. This is the opposite of that.
xdavidliu 2y ago
no, but it could be someone elected who is not part of the police. Of course you can argue that you believe that other someone would be corrupt anyway, but at least this removes the appearance of impropriety
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Appearances might not be as important as actual issues, though - I think it is okay to do it this way. Doctors in the UK sit on ethics boards looking at other doctors' behaviour. I would think it would be good to say that not more than 50% can be ex-law enforcement though, to ensure a reasonable mixture.
  - simiones 2y ago
    That is a different type of review though. Police departments also have Internal Affairs officers who review the work of other policemen for various problems. Citizen review boards become necessary because the public is losing confidence in an entire institution. If the public trusted the police department, then an outside review board would have been entirely unnecessary, the IA department would have been enough. Hospital review boards are not necessary for this reason: overall local hospitals are trusted enough to ensure that they can handle bad actors on their own (in general - it's not like there are 0 cases of bad doctors being covered by their colleagues, but they are the exception).
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      > in general - it's not like there are 0 cases of bad doctors being covered by their colleagues, but they are the exception I don't think this statement aligns with reality: > The mission of our various state medical boards is to “protect health care consumers through the proper licensing and regulation of physicians and surgeons” [15]—to protect, in other words, specifically from doctors who would intentionally harm their patients. But medical boards typically are more lenient with problem physicians than other patient safety processes. > For example, over a 10-year period, researchers found that “seventy percent of the physicians with a clinical-privileges or malpractice-payment report due to sexual misconduct were not disciplined by medical boards for this problem” [1]. Additionally, 67% of insurance fraud convictions were associated only with what I would describe as light discipline—no suspensions or license revocation from medical boards. It seems that medical board members have confused their statutory duty toward patient safety with a well-meaning but terribly misjudged desire to rehabilitate problem doctors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445548/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445548/ > Board member Eserick "TJ" Watkins, who was appointed in 2019, charged that the board doesn't serve patients. Watkins started tracking discipline cases and says the California Medical Board handed out more lenient punishments than its guidelines suggested in nine out of every 10 cases. [...] > "The way they speak is always with doctor care in mind. You never hear patient care, ever — and I mean, ever," said Watkins. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-complaints-discipline-california-medical-board/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-complaints-discipline-ca...
jimmiles 2y ago
I would prefer citizens themselves to elect citizen review board members.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  It is very common for a city/town to have at least one councilor on the police review board for their term, and while not perfect this is close to "elected". I already need to vote for school board trustees and a bunch of other positions I know/care nothing about, don't make me vote for all board compositions too.

>What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff... appoints everyone on it? Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board?

csdreamer7 2y ago

> Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board? Not sure what the point of this argument is. The mayor could appoint someone. The public can directly elect someone. Why is Florida making the boards charged with oversight of the police can only be appointed by the sheriff? It does not sound like a 'citizen review board' but it does sounds very prone to corruption.

Phiwise_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- simiones 2y ago
  Would you think it's a good idea if there were a Presidential Review Board that is named by the President? After all he/she is elected by the people! The whole point of a review board is to be independent of the authority it is supposed to review. So, a police review board mustn't be selected by a member of the police forces, even an elected one.
  - Phiwise_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    While what you're describing is a bad model when you want independent review, its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work. The FAA, USDA, NTSB, etc all regulate industry by quite often asking the industry what regulations are needed and how to enforce them. Its common for industry to even be expected to enforce regulations on themselves, leaving us with situations like Boeing.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      > its exactly how many (all?) of our federal oversight agencies work I think there's a seachange in sentiment reflected in this thread that says these norms should be revised.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I'll be very happy if that's a broad sentiment reaching beyond HN. Our regulatory agencies are worse for all of us when they're owned and operated by industry. A peaceful change seems really, really tricky. Its so much easier to create regulations than remove them. Congress would have to ignore industry money and want to push through change, these agencies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and industry would have to deal with all the churn without cracking our economy since GDP and employment numbers seem to be the only things that really matter to our executive branch.
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      Drugs are approved largely by asking the company that patented it if is safe.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Yes they are, and I'd you read the studies given as evidence of safety and efficacy they're almost entirely garbage.
- smolder 2y ago
  I'm not the previous poster, but the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question. No citizen with a brain is going to select police to review their own behavior, even if they are selecting them to do policing. In fact, I don't think you're unclear on anything: you're just attempting to direct people away from the actual issue with some bad-faith feigned ignorance.
  - Phiwise_ 2y ago
    >the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question [about power derived from elections]. Do they not belong because they are untrue, or perhaps because they make your taking exception to their argument incoherent? Nah, it must be that everyone who disagrees with you on the internet has no brain in bad faith.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- happymellon 2y ago
  It would be a board of citizens. Otherwise you are suggesting a Police Review Board, aka Internal Audit which already exists.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  because a citizen review board is supposed to be representative of the citizenry, not a group of people appointed by the person/thing they are reviewing. Many jurisidictions have rules around the composition, so not just "anybody" can BE on the board, but typically anybody can TRY to be on the board. Example: the legislation could state "a member from the city/town council, and n members of the public" or something similar, intended to promote broad oversight. This is the opposite of that.

xdavidliu 2y ago

no, but it could be someone elected who is not part of the police. Of course you can argue that you believe that other someone would be corrupt anyway, but at least this removes the appearance of impropriety

robertlagrant 2y ago
Appearances might not be as important as actual issues, though - I think it is okay to do it this way. Doctors in the UK sit on ethics boards looking at other doctors' behaviour. I would think it would be good to say that not more than 50% can be ex-law enforcement though, to ensure a reasonable mixture.
- simiones 2y ago
  That is a different type of review though. Police departments also have Internal Affairs officers who review the work of other policemen for various problems. Citizen review boards become necessary because the public is losing confidence in an entire institution. If the public trusted the police department, then an outside review board would have been entirely unnecessary, the IA department would have been enough. Hospital review boards are not necessary for this reason: overall local hospitals are trusted enough to ensure that they can handle bad actors on their own (in general - it's not like there are 0 cases of bad doctors being covered by their colleagues, but they are the exception).
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    > in general - it's not like there are 0 cases of bad doctors being covered by their colleagues, but they are the exception I don't think this statement aligns with reality: > The mission of our various state medical boards is to “protect health care consumers through the proper licensing and regulation of physicians and surgeons” [15]—to protect, in other words, specifically from doctors who would intentionally harm their patients. But medical boards typically are more lenient with problem physicians than other patient safety processes. > For example, over a 10-year period, researchers found that “seventy percent of the physicians with a clinical-privileges or malpractice-payment report due to sexual misconduct were not disciplined by medical boards for this problem” [1]. Additionally, 67% of insurance fraud convictions were associated only with what I would describe as light discipline—no suspensions or license revocation from medical boards. It seems that medical board members have confused their statutory duty toward patient safety with a well-meaning but terribly misjudged desire to rehabilitate problem doctors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445548/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445548/ > Board member Eserick "TJ" Watkins, who was appointed in 2019, charged that the board doesn't serve patients. Watkins started tracking discipline cases and says the California Medical Board handed out more lenient punishments than its guidelines suggested in nine out of every 10 cases. [...] > "The way they speak is always with doctor care in mind. You never hear patient care, ever — and I mean, ever," said Watkins. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-complaints-discipline-california-medical-board/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-complaints-discipline-ca...

jimmiles 2y ago

I would prefer citizens themselves to elect citizen review board members.

skeeter2020 2y ago
It is very common for a city/town to have at least one councilor on the police review board for their term, and while not perfect this is close to "elected". I already need to vote for school board trustees and a bunch of other positions I know/care nothing about, don't make me vote for all board compositions too.