| Evidence-of-the-Police-State-Series
|
|
This article by a professional law enforcement official highlights
the real power of the police in the community. While the author
has suggestions that are basically political, which he proposes
as solutions, the reality is that only a total restructuring of
authority in the United States will change the situation. This
does not mean that people should feel free to break the law, and
it does not mean that all police are corrupt and brutal; any profession
with thousands of members will have a few bad examples, but the
vast majority are sincere, hard-working men and women who are
only doing their jobs. It is the structure of the state that
needs to be addressed, and the laws that the structure produces
that need to be examined. The police have the worst job of all,
because nine times out of ten, the rank and file police abide
by the code of silence out of the same regimented sense of duty
that Hitler's henchmen felt when they pled innocent at the Nuremberg
trials on the basis that they "were only following orders."
It is important, however, to realize that the police are really
just hired hands, hired by the so-called Billionaire Class whose
interests the state serves. The model for the republic is the
plantation, and the president of the republic, ultimately, is
nothing more than a salaried front man, there to take the bullets
meant for the slavemasters.
By Joseph D. McNamara
The scandals raining down on the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department as its leader, Sherman Block, seeks a fifth term pointedly
illustrate the worst way to select a law-enforcement chief executive.
Shortly after becoming police chief of San Jose, I met Peter
J. Pitchess, then sheriff of Los Angeles County, at a law-enforcement
conference. Half-jokingly, I said that, though being police chief
had its difficult moments, at least I didn't have to run for office.
Pitchess replied, "You run every day, I run once every four
years."
True, at any moment, I could have been fired, without notice,
by the city manager, who served at the pleasure of the mayor and
city council. My job strictly depended upon how the San Jose
Police Department performed, not upon vote counts. The payoff
of such an arrangement is that the public gets better policing
when elected officials can hold the head of a police agency accountable.
Pitchess felt the same way and had run on a platform to change
the sheriff's position to an appointive one. He changed his mind
after winning the election. He soon realized that he needed the
clout engendered by votes to deal with the Board of Supervisors.
And, indeed, the county sheriff does have political clout, which
is one reason why all five supervisors have endorsed Block for
re-election.
It is also the reason why the supervisors are unable to exercise
necessary oversight over his Sheriff's Department. The sheriff
is in the cat-bird's seat. He's a powerful politician who doesn't
suffer from the low esteem that Americans generally have for politicians.
Rather, he is viewed as a police leader and is the beneficiary
of the public's currently favorable regard for cops. Yet, had
the department's scandals, previous and current, plagued a big-city
police chief, that chief long ago would have been looking for
a job. (That has not been the case for the LAPD, where as a result
of past corruption the job of chief of police was outside the
control of the mayor and city government; much of this has been
changed lately, but the overwhelming power of the police as an
institution can be felt in every nook and cranny of the city.
WFI Editor)
In the late 1980s, for example, some L.A. County deputy sheriffs
assigned as "elite" narcotics detectives were, in reality,
cop gangsters. Over a period of years, they had robbed drug dealers
of more than $1 million, planted evidence and routinely committed
perjury. Eventually, 27 deputies were convicted of various felonies;
because of flaws in the investigation, it is safe to say that
many escaped arrest. (How many more cop gangster rings exist
undetected? WFI Editor)
An anonymous letter complaining about lavish lifestyles of deputies
stealing drug money triggered the case. Later, it was learned
that the letter had been written by a civilian employee apparently
terrified of violating the department's code of silence but sickened
by the corruption. It was months before the sheriff's brass got
serious about investigating the letter, finally seeking help from
federal authorities, who gathered the significant evidence. The
Sheriff's Department duly denounced the drug corruption and promised
reform, but it was only a few years later that another scandal
popped up. In 1992, the Kolts Report documented a pattern of
excessive force and brutality in the department, as well as racism
and a breakdown of discipline. James G. Kolts, head of the investigation,
was hardly a cop hater. A 67-year-old conservative Republican,
he had been appointed a judge by Gov. Ronald Reagan.
Supervisors who had ordered the report accepted promises of reform
from the department and its leader. They were not kept, but that
didn't horribly upset the supervisors. They were wary of making
an enemy of a sheriff who easily wins re-election and whose political
support is valuable to them. Of course, they have no legal authority
to give the sheriff orders. The price is yet more scandals, the
latest involving deputies allegedly encouraging jail trusties
to beat suspected child molesters, padded contracts for jail food
and alleged special treatment of celebrities. The only way to
prevent such misconduct is to create a climate in which the value
system of rank-and-file deputies rejects the code of silence and
accepts that not reporting crimes by other cops is a firing offense.
In addition, supervisors have to be held strictly accountable
for not preventing corruption they should have detected.
In defending his management in the face of continuing setbacks,
Sheriff Block has frequently said that he, like big-city police
chiefs, will also be held accountable - but it will be by the
voters of Los Angeles County. It's a nice sound bite but a meaningless
comparison. Voters electing sheriffs do not choose from a list
of qualified candidates compiled after an exhaustive national
search. Since it costs a lot of money to run for any elected
office, potential contributors are not inclined to fund a relative
unknown running against an incumbent who is likely to win and
remember who supported him and who did not. (In Orange County,
CA, one contender for sheriff against the incumbent, later won
a judgment in court, proving that the defeated candidate had been
illegally put under surveillance by the Orange County Sheriff
during the course of the campaign. WFI Editor)
This is precisely the problem with electing sheriffs. The sheriff
doesn't necessarily have to be a good manager and leader to keep
his job. Instead, he has to be politically adept and a good fund
raiser, skills that frequently conflict with running a professional
police agency. The need to raise campaign funds may jeopardize
the impartiality and professionalism that a law-enforcement executive
is required to exhibit. The Police Executive Research Forum,
a nonprofit organization made up of police leaders throughout
the United States, promotes a selection process followed by many
cities. A police chief is chosen on merit and given a five-year
renewable contract with clearly stated duties and procedures for
removal for nonperformance. This provides reasonable protection
from improper political influence over law-enforcement decisions
while providing for appropriate oversight of police practices
by elected superiors.
Adopting this model for California's sheriffs would require changing
the state Constitution. There are 58 reasons why this will not
happen. California's sheriffs and their political allies like
the system that just about guarantees the incumbent a lifetime
job. Local politicians and the state legislators are no more
likely to support a statewide initiative to change the process
than are the county supervisors to call for the ouster of an incumbent
sheriff. Block's courage in overcoming serious illnesses and
maintaining a demanding work ethic serves as a model for all.
In all likelihood, the voters will give him another term in June,
scandals or no scandals. It isn't as if replacing him would change
the system and make a new incumbent any more accountable.
SOURCE: Joseph D. McNamara, former police chief of San Jose, California, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Reprinted from the 8 March, 1998, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, Opinion section. Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people.RELATED STORY: POLICE ABUSE SUFFICIENT TO FORCE MONITORING |
|