0

I am looking for an independent way to evaluate:

  • Ruling bias
  • Transparency
  • Sanctions, warnings, etc
  • ...?

for government agencies, police departments, and any other entity that has the ability to infringe on a private citizens right to privacy.

For comparison, I use Charity Navigator to identify publicly supported non profits, and gauge their effectiveness.

My goal is to leverage the independent evaluations of trust and effectiveness to prevent an abuse of power with my software.

Improve this question
1
  • It's really based on law - and opinions on law will often be subjective.
    – Zizouz212
    Commented Aug 30, 2016 at 19:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1

Not in the United States.

Most police are self-policed, which generally means unpoliced. Large police departments have an "internal affairs" department. They are not called INTERNAL affairs for nothing. Everything they do is INTERNAL which means the public can't see it.

States also have an Inspector General's office, but they only get involved with the police in extra-ordinary circumstances.

Judges answer only to a Judicial Review Board, which in Massachusetts, for example, is called the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Proceedings of the CJC only become public if the board finds sufficient cause and makes formal charges. This only happens if the judge has done something blatantly and provably wrong. In 2015 in Massachusetts there were 267 complaints against judges to the CJC. Of those, there were 0 formal charges, and 5 cases of an "informal reprimand" which I do not believe are public.

Improve this answer
4
  • The "internal" in internal affairs means that it is an office of the department that investigates the department -- that is, it conducts internal investigations. It doesn't mean that the office's activities are secret from the public. The fact that internal affairs investigations are often secret from the public, or at least very opaque, has to do with the fact that internal affairs offices are generally not independent, which has little to do with the choice of the word "internal" for the name.
    – phoog
    Commented Aug 30, 2016 at 20:04
  • Go the NYPD Internal Affairs division and ask to see some of their case files. Let me know how that works out for you.
    – Cicero
    Commented Aug 30, 2016 at 20:20
  • 2
    @Cicero phoog wasn't saying that they're open to the public. They were saying that the name "internal affairs" doesn't have much to do with them not being open to the public. The FBI has an Office of Professional Responsibility instead of an Internal Affairs Division, but the different name doesn't actually mean the OPR is any more transparent.
    – cpast
    Commented Aug 30, 2016 at 20:24
  • @cpast thank you for restating my point somewhat more coherently, and for the example, which illustrates it well.
    – phoog
    Commented Aug 30, 2016 at 20:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .