>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?
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.
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.
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).
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/
> 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-ca...
I don't think they said this at all.
You know there are countries that have less of these problems per capita.
Where does that belief come from? Do you just default to thinking that the US is the best, or is this opinion based on some sort of life experience?
Like can you not conceive of another country where the kinds of things that go on in America with police are not routine?
Have you been to another country? Have you ever just walked down the street somewhere else? I've been to many countries, one of which is America and holy shit I can tell you that the police there are weird.