[Proziam]

There's a few points here so I'll try to unpack them in order.

Historically, and still today, sheriffs tend to be very picky about when they choose to mandate non-enforcement in their jurisdictions. The most recent examples are the 2nd amendment sanctuaries, the refusals to comply with federal laws regarding marijuana, and refusals to detain illegal immigrants. The cases where they exercise this power are very often extreme, and unpopular. And as the sheriff is a real public servant and not a hired gun (which I mean literally, in the case of most police departments) they serve at the pleasure of the people.

If the police chief orders a police officer to make an arrest, the officer will be fired if he doesn't comply. A sheriff can't be fired as they are a constitutionally protected official. Further, a sheriff (this varies state by state) can often go so far as to effectively eradicate the existence of a law in their jurisdiction - this is what's happening with 2nd amendment sanctuaries now. Basically, it works because unlike a police officer, a sheriff can say 'I'm not using any resources to enforce this law, period. Oh and you can't do anything about it.'

Lastly, removing elected officials varies from place to place. It's universally easier than removing a sitting president and has the advantage that it's actually possible which isn't always the case for typical police (who are almost universally loathed for their lack of accountability and public recourse options).

[Tyrek]

The accountability issue swings both ways. If a sheriff's office has problems with certain enforcement issues (i.e. profiling, not taking domestic violence allegations seriously, etc.) and the electorate is not immediately interested in these issues, there's no other mechanism to encourage behavior changes - elections are fundamentally a binary state for an individual candidate. There's no nuance to the accountability, and the voting public is often ill informed on relevant policy problems and issues - there's been plenty of coverage about poor fiscal accountability, selective enforcement, etc. that illustrate the dangers with solely relying on the electorate as a quality control mechanism.

At the end of the day, this comes down to where you personally fall on the federalization debate.

[blackearl]

>Lastly, removing elected officials varies from place to place. It's universally easier than removing a sitting president and has the advantage that it's actually possible which isn't always the case for typical police (who are almost universally loathed for their lack of accountability and public recourse options).

In theory this sounds great, but in practice I'm not so sure. The average person seems to get stonewalled at best, harassed or targeted at worst, when trying to file formal complaint against an officer. I can't imagine trying this against a sheriff that is popular with the police unions.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> The cases where they exercise this power are very often extreme, and unpopular. And as the sheriff is a real public servant and not a hired gun (which I mean literally, in the case of most police departments) they serve at the pleasure of the people.

Aren't those two statements in exact opposition?

[Proziam]

Not at all. Using marijuana laws as an example.

Federally, marijuana is very illegal. However, it is very popular, and almost nobody is still supporting its criminalization. So, many sheriffs decided to basically refuse to enforce the laws. IIRC there were also cases of interferance with enforcement by federal agencies. This protected the citizens from what is seen as a severe overreach by the federal government.

To me, that is the essence of serving the will of the people.

[SketchySeaBeast]

But not enforcing marijuana in that case wouldn't be "often extreme, and unpopular".

[Proziam]

The war on drugs, which led to extraordinary harm to many people and communities, could certainly be categorized as extreme and unpopular. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

[SketchySeaBeast]

I just realize you mean that they use their power to not enforce something when that thing is "very often extreme, and unpopular. " The way you said it "The cases where they exercise this power are very often extreme, and unpopular." seemed to me to indicate that their choice to enforce their action was extreme or unpopular.

[Proziam]

My apologies, I didn't realize at the time of writing that the sentence could have been interpreted differently. The err is mine.