The purpose of this research is to examine the concept of oversight review of police activities. In most instances, this process is accomplished by a publicly constituted body, which is most usually called a civilian review board, or a police review board.
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE: ACCOUNTABILITY
An understanding of the civilian review of police activi ties requires first an understanding of the use by police of the term civilian. The ordinary citizen tends to differentiate civilians from members of the nation's armed, uniformed mili tary services. The police in the United States, however, use the term civilian in different contexts. First, there is the distinction within a police organization between sworn and unsworn personnel. Sworn personnel are typically referred to as police, while unsworn personnel within the police organiza tion are referred to as civilians employed by the police (Repetto, 1989). This differentiation between police and civi lians is not the one used by police when civilian review is the issue.
When civilian review is the issue, police organizations use the term civilian to refer to individuals and groups which
1 2are external to the police organization. Such personnel and groups may be members of the general public, or they may be a part of some governmental jurisdiction.
The concept of civilian review of police activities is a contentious one. Police and police organizations tend to view civilian review as an intrusion on their professional autonomy by individuals and groups who have neither the expertise nor the right to exercise such oversight. Many non police indivi duals and groups, by contrast, view effective civilian review as the only means of preventing excesses by police in the exer cise of law enforcement.
Ultimately, the advocates of civilian review of police activities are on stronger legal and theoretical grounds than are the police who oppose civilian review. Legally...