You are here
The Conflicts That Arise When Coroners Are Part of a Sheriff Office
Tuesday, November 19th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
A
Bakersfield Californian editorial on Saturday points out the kinds of conflict situation that arise when, to save money, a
coroner office is brought into a sheriff or police department
office.
A conflict situation arises when a coroner is asked to determine the cause of death of a jail inmate, of an individual in police custody, or of an individual who dies during a police operation. The editorial states, "Even when the functions of the two offices are performed within the strictest letter of the law, the sheriff is essentially still investigating himself."
Fresno County is considering bringing the coroner into the sheriff office. The editorial provides a real-life scenario from neighboring Kern County, where an individual was "roused from his sleep outside Kern Medical Center and then, when he reportedly resisted a deputy's efforts to detain him, beaten with batons, attacked by a K-9 and hog-tied." The coroner's office said that the man died from natural causes.
Such a determination, even if it were true, is hard for the community to trust. The editorial goes on to explain that "good policing (and, consequently, public safety) requires buy-in from the community — and that means all the communities within it. Across-the-board buy-in is achieved only when law enforcement operates as transparently as possible. Self-investigation does not convey transparency, and lack of transparency does not engender trust."
This is well stated and, in California at least, appears to be well understood. The editorial notes that "conflict of interest protections are in place for many county and city offices and in state and federal legislative positions. Somehow, the sheriff is exempt."
In fact, in too many areas, including nepotism, uniformed departments are exempt. They shouldn't be. Conflicts in these important government departments can be very damaging to the public trust.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A conflict situation arises when a coroner is asked to determine the cause of death of a jail inmate, of an individual in police custody, or of an individual who dies during a police operation. The editorial states, "Even when the functions of the two offices are performed within the strictest letter of the law, the sheriff is essentially still investigating himself."
Fresno County is considering bringing the coroner into the sheriff office. The editorial provides a real-life scenario from neighboring Kern County, where an individual was "roused from his sleep outside Kern Medical Center and then, when he reportedly resisted a deputy's efforts to detain him, beaten with batons, attacked by a K-9 and hog-tied." The coroner's office said that the man died from natural causes.
Such a determination, even if it were true, is hard for the community to trust. The editorial goes on to explain that "good policing (and, consequently, public safety) requires buy-in from the community — and that means all the communities within it. Across-the-board buy-in is achieved only when law enforcement operates as transparently as possible. Self-investigation does not convey transparency, and lack of transparency does not engender trust."
This is well stated and, in California at least, appears to be well understood. The editorial notes that "conflict of interest protections are in place for many county and city offices and in state and federal legislative positions. Somehow, the sheriff is exempt."
In fact, in too many areas, including nepotism, uniformed departments are exempt. They shouldn't be. Conflicts in these important government departments can be very damaging to the public trust.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
