NCJ Number
140698
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 40 Issue: 12 Dated: (December 1992) Pages: 51-56
Date Published
1992
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article addresses several questions that police administrators in communities without civilian oversight boards want to have answered before boards are demanded in their communities: have these boards been able to deal fairly with incidents of alleged police misconduct; can the existence of civilian oversight boards help police departments weed out bad officers; has the presence of civilian oversight increased police professionalism; are these boards preferable to the old system of internal investigation; and do the boards actually work.
Abstract
Most civilian oversight boards are fair and impartial and actually tend to be easier on accused officers than internal police department processes, yet many officers feel that civilian oversight boards cannot fairly judge police because they have no awareness of an officer's job. Police department jobs traditionally have been protected by both civil service and strong unions. Consequently, the dismissal of poorly performing officers is difficult for internal affairs units and particularly for external boards that do not have experience in this area. Studies indicate that civilian boards fail to investigate complaints against officers as zealously as many internal affairs units. Additionally, many boards cannot compel testimony, cannot punish, and take too lightly the withholding or distortion of evidence. In sum, civilian oversight does not appear to be an improvement. A review of the available literature suggests that most of these boards have not worked well.