This post was co-written by Dan Garodnick and Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union.
Despite many fears that the current economic turmoil might lead to higher crime, statistics show that our streets are as safe as ever.
So far, the "bad old days" are simply a memory, except in one respect: we are moving closer each year back to a time when the NYPD had the sole authority to police its own officers accused of misconduct.
Instead, we should be improving the civilian oversight system in order to keep public confidence in the police high and to reduce bureaucratic waste, all while allowing the force's vast majority of conscientious and courageous officers to continue their work unhindered by new regulations.
Under the existing system, the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigates complaints made by members of the public for misconduct that fall in to one of four categories -- force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, and offensive language -- and this year, those complaints are on pace to surpass 8,000 for the first time ever. When the CCRB finds reasonable evidence of misconduct, it refers those "substantiated" cases to the NYPD for disciplinary action.
Unfortunately, that's as far as many of these cases go.
The Police Department in 2008 declined to pursue discipline against officers in 33 percent of cases substantiated by the CCRB. That figure increased exponentially from just 1 percent in 2003 and 3 percent in 2004. And it came amid a falling number of substantiated cases, which dropped from 367 in 2003 to 265 last year, as the the CCRB has become more careful about forwarding only the strongest cases for discipline.
It is true that officers are generally more courteous and professional today than in years past. But that doesn't explain the Police Department's growing inaction on substantiated cases of misconduct.
When it comes to pursuing the most contentious cases, the Police Department undertook only 19 administrative trials against officers in 2008, down from 90 in 2003 and 88 in 2004.
Not following up on these serious cases undermines accountability and public trust in the system at a time when tens of thousands of New Yorkers' only interaction with the police comes when they are stopped and frisked on the street despite any wrongdoing.
It also increases the likelihood that officers who commit multiple offenses will go unpunished. Since 2003, 70 percent of all complaints were lodged against officers who already had more than one complaint. Sixty-four officers have received 10 or more complaints in that time.
To prevent future cases of serious police abuse, we need to address the serious cases today.
An excellent way to begin would be to hand prosecutorial power of police misconduct cases directly to the CCRB.
Letting the Board decide which cases to pursue would instill independence in the process. The NYPD would maintain its role as judge and jury, meaning that the system would gain transparency without compromising Commissioner Ray Kelly's ultimate disciplinary authority in any way.
The Department has argued that the cases it does not pursue lack solid evidence. If so, the CCRB's prosecutors will decide not to pursue them, or they will lose those cases, but at least they will be heard, and not merely dropped without explanation.
Currently, the NYPD's Department Advocate's Office makes the decision on which cases to pursue -- after essentially re-investigating the already-substantiated cases.
As an all-powerful gatekeeper, the DAO can, and all too often does, take the civilian review out of the civilian complaint review process. And by duplicating the work of the CCRB, it wastes taxpayer dollars at the same time.
Commissioner Kelly recognized the value of delegating prosecutorial power. Last year, he launched a pilot program to allow CCRB prosecutors to assist those from the Department.
Now, we must go the rest of the way and grant the CCRB the independence it needs to do its job.
Only with true civilian oversight can we be sure that the "bad old days" remain in the past.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.