Civilian Review Boards
Civilian review boards were established to keep police accountable for their actions to the public. However, these boards have not been effective in curbing risky behaviors on the part of the police. The role of civilian review board of investigating police misconduct is normally limited by lack of subpoena power, inadequate investigation staff and mechanism and the need to follow long processes (Human Rights Watch, 1998). In addition, civilian review boards do not make their recommendations available to the public. Civilian review boards have limited power to access police files and other information while conducting investigation. This obviously limits the effectiveness of their investigation. The civilian review boards also lack enough staff and mechanism to enable them conduct an effective investigation into police misconduct.
A civilian review board is composed of seven unpaid members of the public who are appointed by the mayors and the city councils. Them being unpaid in the first place will mean that the will not take this responsibility as their primary duty because they must have other income generating activities. In addition, the effectiveness of civilian review boards is limited by the long processes they have to follow in order to provoke action against reported police misconduct. The board is supposed to commence investigation within three months after receiving a complaint. The board is not allowed to meet publicly or make public deliberations and once they are through with investigation they are supposed to submit their recommendation to the mayor and wait for action (Human Rights Watch, 1998).
The recommendations are not made available to the public. If a private law suit is filed against a police officer on the same account of misconduct the civilian review board is prevented from commencing investigations. An article by Human Rights Watch (1998) on police misconduct reveals how the mayor for Atlanta at that time called for creation of a civilian review board completely oblivious that one already existed. This was after a public out cry against police misconduct that involved a person named Jackson. This case proved how trivial these review boards are if the person who is supposed to be the appointing authority was not aware that one existed.
Reference
Human Rights Watch (1998), Shielded from Justice, retrieved on November 25, 2010, from Http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo42.htm
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
