mE mE

A third method for controlling police brutality is creating a civilian review board. The review board should be independent from the police department so that officers cannot exert their influence over civilians or the decisions made by the group. The review board should also hold open meetings so that all members of the community are welcome to come and share their concerns, complaints, and any ideas about how to monitor and curtail police brutality. It is imperative that this review board be and re-training yet again, the burden is on the taxpayers. What this means is that citizens must be willing to take on this additional financial burden or take a loss in some other area of police protection. For example, to pay for the additional manpower it takes to implement the new policies, from disciplinary actions and mental and physical training, the department may have to cut back on the total number of officers, both in the field and holding administrative positions. This would mean less officers on the street for protection. Response time may slow down as officers have larger areas to cover. In less affluential neighborhoods, where adopting the higher cost is not a small issue, and where added police protection is most often needed, and where crime and abuse most prevalent, added stress of police budgets does not serve as many people. For those who can afford the financial increase, they are morally aware that police are being kept in-line. For those who cannot afford it, they see more of the negative implications such as increased cost--possibly--or less available officers. Is there a way for police abuse to be monitored without the direct community taking the full burden? Perhaps the federal government can supply the additional manpower, and hence the additional cost, of implementing an investigation and rehabilitation team. Surely, at least some portion of the newly passed Clinton Crime Bill provides for such subsidization.