No, my point is that history does not support the argument that an elected police official is less inclined to be corrupt. In fact, there might be an argument to the opposite. But it is clear that depending on the constituency and the traditions of the jurisdiction, elected officials can be prone to institutionalized corruption. We had an issue with our sheriff just recently. He allowed ATFB and FBI officials to come in and terrorize a citizen based on information gained from the guy's ex-wife. Turned out he broke no law, but was treated like the worse of the worse, and with no warrant. They complained, but re-elected the a-hole.
Yes, but, Muleskinner, even if what you say is true, you should take note that I emphasized the word LOCAL. When elected officials are local, even if corrupt, you always have the option of moving to a less corrupt county, or even state. When police action becomes increasingly federalized, where are you going to move to? But I still maintain that the ability to vote out the sheriff was, and in some places remains, a check on local abuse by law enforcement. Why would you wish to eliminate your ability to "vote the bums out" by substituting police commissioners (who are not elected and cannot be removed by the people of a community) for local elected sheriffs? If a sheriff has, by corruption, somehow thwarted the majority's ability to vote him out, the answer is to address the corruption, not to make the guy immune to the will of the people, which is what you seem to be advocating.
