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.
The whole point of a review board is to be independent of the authority it is supposed to review. So, a police review board mustn't be selected by a member of the police forces, even an elected one.
The FAA, USDA, NTSB, etc all regulate industry by quite often asking the industry what regulations are needed and how to enforce them. Its common for industry to even be expected to enforce regulations on themselves, leaving us with situations like Boeing.
I think there's a seachange in sentiment reflected in this thread that says these norms should be revised.
Our regulatory agencies are worse for all of us when they're owned and operated by industry.
A peaceful change seems really, really tricky. Its so much easier to create regulations than remove them. Congress would have to ignore industry money and want to push through change, these agencies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and industry would have to deal with all the churn without cracking our economy since GDP and employment numbers seem to be the only things that really matter to our executive branch.
Do they not belong because they are untrue, or perhaps because they make your taking exception to their argument incoherent? Nah, it must be that everyone who disagrees with you on the internet has no brain in bad faith.
Otherwise you are suggesting a Police Review Board, aka Internal Audit which already exists.
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.
Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board?