of an occurrence to one year after discovery of the incident" (Sahagun & Simon B8).
The main argument in favor of Proposition F was that it would make the police more accountable to the people of Los Angeles. In this way, it was argued that brutality, racism and other problems within the police department would be overcome (Jefferson A6). The major argument against the proposition was that it would politicize the police department and thereby encourage corruption. In a Wall Street Journal article, it was claimed that the proposed amendment might "lead to political corruption by putting the chief under the thumb of the mayor" (Ibid.). In the Los Angeles Times, it was noted that placing the police under civilian control would "restrict the independence of the department and encourage corruption" (Clifford & Sahagun A30). Opponents of the proposal pointed out that the amendment would not only encourage corruption, but would make it more difficult for the police to do their job. The world of city politics is far removed from the reality of crime on the streets. Therefore, political control over the police department would have a detrimental effect on the ability of the police to do what they must in order to protect the people of the city. In the words of a New York Times writer, it is important that the city have "a police department free from political pressures" (Mydans 19).
These problems of political control were made worse by the fact that the provisions of Proposition F actually had little to do with trying to improve the workings of the police department itself. The focus of the provisions was on limiting the power of the Police Chief rather than on actually solving the problems of crime in Los Angeles. Thus, it was argued that the amendment's provisions "would actually have little effect on the law enforcement concerns that animate its backers" (Ibid.). In the June primary elections, the people of the city vote...