No, not that Texas sheriff who was under scrutiny following a mass shooting, this one
Greg Capers had sought a fourth term as sheriff in San Jacinto County, which is about 60 miles (97 km) north of Houston.
But on Tuesday, Capers lost the Republican nomination for sheriff to San Jacinto County Precinct 3 Constable Sam Houston. With no Democratic candidates on the ballot Tuesday, Houston is set to be elected the new sheriff in November.
Capers drew criticism for initially providing inaccurate information about deputies’ response time to the April 2023 shooting in which Francisco Oropeza is accused of killing his neighbors after they had asked him to stop shooting his gun near their house. The attack happened near the town of Cleveland, north of Houston.
I like how we need to clarify which shithead sheriff we’re talking about from day to day
Maybe We should train law enforcement officers, instead of electing them. It hasn’t worked out much better so far, but conceptually I think it’s the right idea.
As a Canadian I’ve never understood why America elects sheriffs and judges.
I say this because elections have become nothing more than popularity contests, full of lies and innuendo, vs qualified and vetted candidates who simply want to serve their fellow citizens.
The last place elections should be held is in a justice system that’s supposedly there to serve the people.
Not to defend this guy, or even police in general (ACAB), but the sheriff or chief of police is supposed to be more of a political position that decides where to allocate resources and how to prioritize the needs of the community. Since that involves discerning the will of the people, it makes sense that the people should decide who fills the role and get to continually reevaluate it. The alternative is that another politician just appoints someone into the role, which has most of the same downsides while also being undemocratic.
That’s just theory, of course, and not even considering how messed up the whole election process really is.
I’m not sure there’s much difference between worrying about the mayor making his own private army and the police chief making his own private army, except for the additional name on a ballot. And on that theme, wouldn’t how we deal with crime, safety, and how we interact with the residents of the city be things the leader of the city is also worried about? I’m not saying the reasoning is wrong, I just don’t think it solves the problems you raised.
Canada uses Police Boards to vet who should hired (from within or outside the specific force).
Judges are appointed by provincial or federal governments, usually after being vetted by hiring committees.
Our Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) bases their opinions on far more than “original intent”. They also take into account our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and do not recognize businesses being equal to individuals in having those rights.
As a result we have very few instances of any judges ruling based on their political beliefs vs prior similar rulings or what the law actually states.
Most LEO are just hired and trained under top level officers supervision. Top level officers are elected. Thus the public can vote their ass out if they turn out to be criminals.
Otherwise, the only oversight they would have would be the mayor, which the mayor would have their own private army basically. Doing whatever the mayor wants or they are fired…
You make a few wrong assumptions about how bureaucrats are appointed in Canada. I’ll speak about Ontario municipalities, because that’s what I’m most familiar with, but I believe the process in most other provinces is very similar.
For municipalities with their own police, the chief is not appointed by the mayor, they are recommended by the police board (made up of council members (often including the mayor) and civilians) and are approved by the whole council. Similarly, if they are to be removed, the mayor would not be able to do that on their own, they would need the support of council.
Also, it’s not just the council who has oversight. Municipalities are a creature of the provincial government, so they can overrule a municipality. This process may seem similar to what can happen in US states, but the difference is that it’s overriding the decision of municipal politicians (to not remove a police chief), rather than removing a duly elected politician (impeachment).
I know it’s hard to see things a different way than the how it’s “normal” where you are (I have a few personal experiences doing this), so I can see how it might seem that politicians could corrupt these bureaucrats under them. However, as a Canadian, I can say it’s pretty great having an independent judiciary, elections administrators, and even police (to the extent that police can be great). There have definitely been issues with politicians trying to force through friendly appointments (we had a controversy just over 5 years ago with a nomination to lead the provincial police), but it’s generally worked out fairly well. Since appointments are within the system of governance, there are some “checks and balances” which I know Americans love to tout.