As we have discussed in previous classes, rural America is suffering from a shortage of "professionals" such as lawyers and judges. Also, as discussed in other blogs, there is a shortage of doctors and teachers. But rural areas also suffer from a lack of police officers, which adds to the interwoven criminal justice problems already faced by rural Americans, as discussed in these blogs featuring police killings, here, here, and here. This post will discuss other unique policing problems that affect rural Americans.
As of 2022, there has been a shortage of new police recruitment. This police shortage is affecting rural towns first and hardest. As discussed in the Calmatters article, policing shortages partly occur because of the warranted negative stigma regarding policing. The result of this shortage, however, can have devastating consequences and is affecting people in places like Tehama County, California first. For instance, officers there responded to a 911 call with, "Sorry, we can't make it; handle it yourself."
Further, deputies near the Tehama Reserve have not responded to immediate threats of violence or active home break-ins. These instances of police inaction, as discussed in other blog posts, are likely exacerbating rural America's problem with gun violence, as deputies advise fearful residents they cannot reach to protect themselves by "get[ing] a shotgun and a dog."
Advocates and experts alike advise that police shortages will only be overcome once policing practices are completely reformed. But another aspect of policing that may benefit from reform is the Sherrif system. A growing issue in rural America is this new wave of self-described constitutional sheriffs, who claim that because they follow the doctrines of the Constitution, they do not need to enforce laws newly enacted by Congress or even their own state legislature. For instance, multiple rural constitutional sheriffs in Illinois, Maryland, Colorado, and New York, have issued statements claiming they will not enforce new gun control laws.
An added layer of complexity to this issue regards the differences between police and sheriffs. For starters, sheriffs usually respond to incidents outside of city limits. Sheriffs are also county elected officials who may only be removed from their positions of power through future elections. While Police officers work mainly in urban areas, are hired by the city, and can be fired for not meeting job expectations. Because of the uniqueness of the sheriff system, self-proclaimed constitutional sheriffs say that they act in accordance with the wishes of those who locally elected them. However, "constitutional sheriffs" lack actual legal backing for their belief as laid out in James Tomberlin's article "Dont Elect Me" from the Virginia law review, "the sheriff is independent of the county and is actually, in many important ways, an agent of the state."
Yet, despite the "constitutional sheriff's" lack of legal standing, Tomberlin admits, "The sheriff’s hybrid state-and-local status creates misalignments between different levels of government that obstruct efforts to hold the sheriff accountable." How, then, can we hold these elected officials accountable if rural people continue to vote for them and agree with their actions? Could there be some truth behind what these sheriffs are saying? What happens when states also support these constitutional sheriffs?
As Jessica Pisko, an independent journalist and lawyer writing about the white supremacy behind the sheriff system, reports, Texas allows sheriffs to use "constitutional sheriff seminars" to complete their continued education training, implying support for these sheriffs.
On the other hand, how do we uphold democracy when we tell people that what they want for their towns does not matter? While I disagree with the sheriff's anti-gun control sentiment, I see myself agreeing with a county in Miami that refuses to enforce Governor DeSantis's anti-LGBT laws.
Ultimately this is a complex issue to tackle. I do not think our society can function without a governmental system that enforces enacted laws while addressing the grievances of those negatively affected by unjust laws. And I believe that the "Constitutional sheriff" is a problem that needs to be solved quickly as new waves of these sheriffs claim that they can "investigate presidential elections," something that will ultimately undermine the democratic system they proclaim they uphold.
2 comments:
Thank you so much for your insightful post! I had no idea about this "constitutional sheriffs" phenomenon. It feels almost anti-democratic--forcing us to abide solely by a constitution that was written two hundred years ago by slave owners. I see your point about not enforcing Desantis's anti-LGBT legislation, but overall it seems like a bad idea to me, especially considering the politics, opinions, and demographics of police officers.
I wonder if the shortage of rural police officers is a perfect opportunity to divest in rural communities from police. Specifically, I would love to take away some of the responsibilities of police officers and put them into the hands of social workers. But then again, if we're having trouble getting police officers in rural areas, would social workers be any better? It's such a difficult issue.
Thank you for posting this! For me, by far the most concerning way that states have been addressing policing shortages involves the military-to-police pipeline. For example, in and around New Orleans, police departments are combatting staffing shortages by specifically recruiting military veterans who have just returned from deployment overseas. It’s difficult to understate how concerning that sounds. Combine recent war veterans- many of whom likely need lots of counseling to deal with the extremely traumatic realities of war- with an extremely militarized police force, and you can clearly see a contributing factor to the massive police brutality problem this country faces.
Ironically, the best way to increase police recruitment would probably be to reform policing in the ways that liberals are suggesting. Defunding armed police, and siphoning those resources towards other programs meant to handle 911 calls on a more individualized basis, would put police at a much lower risk of encountering situations they are not trained for, and likely mean less danger on the job. Plus, progressive reform to the very concept of law enforcement itself in this country would mean more successful recruitment in a profession that is currently overwhelmingly conservative (or the elimination of the profession as we know it).
Post a Comment