Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The police occupy a unique and important position in society. Police forces were created to enforce criminal law and maintain public order. In order to accomplish this they have been issued a wide range of powers, including the power to use deadly force in the performance of their duties. This places them in a unique position. Cops are not only expected to enforce the law, they are also expected to operate within it. When they don't, measures must be taken to discipline them.

Misconduct by police officers results in public dissatisfaction, especially when citizens who file formal complaints feel their complaints have not been taken seriously or investigated thoroughly. When problems occur in the complaint process, they hurt the relationship between the police and the community. When police officers are not disciplined properly, the public gets skeptical of both the review process and the police themselves. This issue is especially important today because law enforcement is increasingly making use of community policing, which emphasizes a better relationship between the police and the community.

Some groups in society have lost faith in the forces' ability to police themselves. Some community groups—particularly members of ethnic and racial minorities—advocate implementing citizen review as a way to restore faith in the police because they feel it will be more thorough and objective in reviewing civilian complaints of police misconduct.

The Birth of Citizen Review

External review can be traced back to the first modern police department, in London in 1828. Led by Sir Robert Peel, it provided mechanisms for both internal and external review of citizens'complaints about police misconduct. The movement for external investigation of complaints alleged against the police gathered support in the 1960s. Two of the first civilian review procedures created in the United States were in Philadelphia and New York.

The Philadelphia board operated—in shaky fashion—from 1958 to 1967. During this period it recommended punitive sanctions against police officers in only 6 percent of the cases it reviewed. However, for much of its existence, the board was not able to hold any hearings because of pending court decisions. The Philadelphia lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police filed several lawsuits against it, and in 1966 won a suit that idled the board for nearly two and a half years while the case was being appealed. In the end, opposition from police unions proved too hard to overcome. Inadequate staffing, lack of funding, and the inability to hold hearings for so long led the board to eventually disband.

In New York, Mayor John Lindsay established the Civilian Complaint Review Board in July 1966. Its life span was even shorter than its Philadelphia counterpart's. The board survived for only four months and was abolished by a public vote in November 1966. Yet in that period it received 422 complaints, more than twice the number reported to the internal police review board in a year. But as in Philadelphia, the New York board was unable to overcome the hostility from the unions representing rank-and-file police officers.

The failure of civilian review in those two cities discouraged the adoption of civilian review agencies throughout the country. Efforts were renewed in the early 1970s, but in the face of political pressure and bitter opposition by police and their unions, most civilian review mechanisms lasted only a short time.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading