The Problems with County Law Enforcement

In many areas of the US, particularly rural areas, law enforcement is conducted by sheriffs who have little, if any, oversight of their activities. This creates opportunity for grievous wrongs to be perpetrated by those most responsible to and for the community.

Our modern term sheriff goes back to medieval England and the responsibilities are still pretty much the same. The sheriff of old England was responsible for an area that much resembled, in size, politics and economy our modern counties. The sheriff’s primary responsibility was originally the collection of taxes, which is still true and why tax foreclosure auctions are frequently referred to as “sheriff’s auctions”. The feudal sheriff was also responsible for the maintenance of the peace in his jurisdiction. Frequently, maintenance of the peace simply meant that the privileged were safe in their persons and possessions from disturbance by commoners; the sheriff was not typically held responsible for the safety of the commoners and serfs. If one held real property, then one could expect the sheriff’s office to protect it and them.

In the US, these priorities have largely been reversed, but the practice of favoring property holders, especially those with significant property, over the average resident, or outsider, has remained static. The reason for this is that, as in feudal times, the property holder pays taxes and has a voice in the community. Property holders tend to sit on boards, committees, and commissions and hold elected office. Property holders tend to be more socially, politically, and economically active than renters and transients. Therein lies the justification for the favoritism sheriffs typically show. Though, in a democracy, every voice counts, some count more than others. Those who are able to rally money and commitments are able to influence elections, and modern sheriffs are elected. Though feudal sheriffs were not elected, they were still beholden to those who wielded influence and conferred office. Though the method of selection has changed in theory, the end result is still largely controlled by people of similar social position. Anyone who pays attention to local politics is well aware of the backroom dealings between law enforcement and the local power holders.

Sheriff’s offices across the country operate with little or no oversight, operating as independent fiefdoms as long as the taxes are paid and the peace maintained. In the US, it seems that most people believe that those arrested must be guilty, regardless of the facts. From this line of thought, it becomes easy for the populace to condone rougher than necessary, and even illegal, treatment of the “bad guys” upon their arrest. If one wasn’t doing something wrong, then they wouldn’t have been arrested, right? The sheriff’s office, one must remember, usually has absolute control of the “facts” after a person’s arrest and leading up to trial. In rural areas, it is incredibly easy to taint any given jury pool by selective interpretation and release of the “facts” through the media and even casual acquaintance. We are taught, usually, to respect and trust the police and deputies protecting us from the evil doers, are we not? So, too, are we taught to believe them when, through media release or casual conversation, they inform us that a person is guilty of this or that.

Frequently, those arrested are guilty of the crime(s) of which they are accused. Sometimes they are not. The current bail system decidedly favors the property owner and the well-employed as well as those with personal and political connections to whatever local power system is in practice. For the rest, there is jail. Jail is usually, due to lack of oversight and a “get tough on crime” attitude, much worse than prison. Unlike prison anymore, sheriffs have a fiscal motive to keep costs down. Every dollar that a sheriff doesn’t spend on his jail is a dollar he can give himself; no, the savings that sheriffs effect in the holding of prisoners do not go back to the taxpayers. Most frequently, the savings that a sheriff is able to claim go back into his pocket. So, sheriffs have a personal financial stake in failing to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, and even cleanliness. In rural areas, if there is oversight and inspections, the sheriff usually has a personal as well as professional relationship with those responsible for reporting on conditions, so the process is mostly tainted to the inmates’ grief. A sheriff has many ways to save “taxpayers” money. A jail can fail to provide adequate cleaning supplies, fail to properly maintain facilities, keep heating to a minimum, foregoing air conditioning and ventilation completely, serve inadequate, unbalanced diets, and inadequately staff, train, and supervise jailers. A sheriff can also promote unrest in the inmate population, giving cause for rescinding “privileges” and further reducing the minimal quality of health and life while increasing “savings”. Some even run commissaries where the prices reflect a 300+% profit. Others illegally censor and even copy mail, in defiance of federal law; but, the local postmaster is a buddy, so he isn’t going to do anything.

All of this is justified as jail being “punishment”. Jail isn’t supposed to be “punishment” for those who haven’t been convicted. Most inmates in city and county jails are awaiting trial; they have not been convicted, so where is the justification for “punishment”? Jail is most often used for the holding of the accused, not the convicted, and separation from friends and family along with probable loss of employment and comfort of home should be “punishment” enough. Just as conditions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have radicalized Muslims who were innocent of terrorism, so too, does “punishment” of the innocent in jails tend to foster feelings of resentment and desires for revenge that can criminalize the average person.