Better question: Was it ever a sheriff?
Seems like elected sheriff's work well in a local community assuming high voter participation.
Very high profile position. I'm from the tropics so I understand that elections can be rigged (see DR 1994). Would love to hear if this worked or failed in the states.
Do we have evidence elected sheriffs are more humane than appointed ones? (Honest question.)
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/us/ana-franklin-alabama-s... 2. https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/commentary... 3. https://apnews.com/afa9172c457725c92dcb39aca9c85a49
The issue may also be exacerbated if the electorate is actively okay or willing to ignore the corruption.
I believe the increasing political nature of the position is, in fact, part of the issue. The influence of politics through Mayors and the Police Unions makes running a department efficiently and effectively an impossible task if you want to hold onto your job. A chief of police either spend all of their time appeasing politicians by implementing their ideas for how to police effectively or are replaced by someone who will. At the same time they are receiving constant push-back from the Police Union. Never mind the years of experience, training, and graduate degree work almost all police chiefs have endured; they either do what politicians think they should do or are replaced. If they lose the confidence of the Union the Union will sabotage them and they will be replaced.
The second major issue, as I see it, is how we select and hire police officers, which still, almost universally, relies on the polygraph test. The polygraph is proven pseudoscience, but the actually effectiveness, I suspect, is irrelevant because the goal is to see if prospective hires can take the pressure of the test; not to detect dishonesty. You either get perfect applicants, or those who are okay and comfortable with lying.
There are many more issues, of course: the increasing militarization, some departments actively rejecting high IQ candidates, low pay and long working hours for patrol, etc.
They're not local police, they're not state police or FBI, their primary job often winds up being running corrections. Secondary job is detail work on county property. Actual job is often being a patronage network for their boss, the sheriff, help him get re-elected and keep your job.
It's actually the worst possible scenario, because we bring in all the downsides of an elected sheriff with none of the upsides -- they don't work on any of the things where being elected would add accountability. Hiring standards are low, they're based on political usefulness, and there's no downside to the sheriff because who gives a shit about a prisoner being abused.
It's possible that elected local police chiefs might improve things in a way that doesn't extrapolate from the way elected sheriffs work.
i don't know how it works on average but there are a few high-profile cases of elected sheriffs seriously abusing their office. Joe Arpaio is the most famous. he had a strong base of support from people in the county, and wasn't afraid to use the powers of his office to target political opponents, which let him stay in power for many years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(1955%E2%80%...