Unmasking the sheriff
Unmasking the Sheriff
There’s a new anti-mask sheriff in town. Not only will Marion County, Florida Sheriff Billy Woods not enforce mask-wearing; he also forbids deputies from wearing masks in the office and won’t let visitors wear them either. Woods claims that mask-wearing is a hazard because protestors may sneak inside. (It looks like Woods was forced to walk some of this back although employees are allowed to say they are exempt from mask-wearing.)
Unsurprisingly, Marion County also has a problem with COVID-19 infections in the jail, leading to at least one lawsuit and a number of damning anonymous comments about his leadership. Woods’s order notably allows deputies to wear masks in the jail, since it’s a COVID-19 hotspot.
A number of sheriffs across the country have similarly said they won’t enforce mask-wearing, and while I haven’t checked them all, I don’t doubt most have done little to decarcerate their jail populations. Many other police and sheriff departments have, at best, lukewarm and unenforced mask requirements. No one has faced actual repercussions although one Washington state sheriff may be facing a recall election.
These sheriffs’ unique blend of white victimization and a narrow-minded concern for safety is specifically political and Trumpian. Trump needs these sheriffs, not just to execute his anti-immigration campaign, but also to encourage their constituents to vote for Trump under the auspices of supporting “law and order.” The sheriffs need Trump, if not just because they spiritually align with his values, but also because they need the deportation machine and federal jail subsidies to keep themselves and their jails afloat at a time when resources and tax bases are dwindling.
On August 11, Sheriff Woods joined a conference call with Trump and other sheriffs about “Operation Legend.” A week or two earlier, Trump met with a group of adoring supporters and Florida sheriffs after a state sheriff association meeting where one Florida sheriff infected his colleagues with COVID-19. The meet-and-greet culminated in a photo op, where Trump appears with 15 Florida sheriffs – all maskless – to express his support for law enforcement and his opposition to “defunding.” Most of the sheriffs present endorsed Trump, as did most Florida sheriffs. (The state sheriff association said it wasn’t sponsoring the event, but let’s be real.)
I would argue that the mask debate parallels sheriff debates over the 2nd Amendment, namely that some county sheriffs (also generally conservative, rural sheriffs in states where the main urban center is more liberal-leaning) have opposed or refused to enforce legal restrictions on gun ownership and possession. There are more ridiculous versions of this argument (like the Florida sheriff who said he would deputize everyone so they could carry handguns), but many sheriffs simply rely on their right to exercise unfettered discretion. In fact, because of their total discretion and poor data, I don’t think we can know if sheriffs are enforcing gun laws, failing to enforce gun laws, or enforcing gun laws unevenly. So, really, the sheriffs aren't wrong. They do, in practice, decide what laws to enforce and how.
I think most people interested in reforming the criminal legal system support the idea of discretion in both policing and prosecution. While common sense dictates a limit to discretion, there’s not much official guidance on where that discretion begins and ends. And this is exactly why the sheriffs' argument continues to spread like a bad rumor. It makes some sense, until you realize that their arguments ignore a whole history of the criminal legal system being unjustly weaponized to oppress BIPOC. Decriminalizing alone isn’t justice.
It is reductive and dismissive to reduce these anti-mask sheriffs to a fringe movement. Their stance, in fact, reflects the very contradictions at the core of policing and its intersection with a history of white supremacy and over-reliance on the presumed will of the people. The National Sheriff Association appears to be a on a PR campaign to show that sheriffs are the natural, democratic version of police, providing “stability and continuity.” In previous newsletters, I’ve questioned (and mostly disagreed with) this claim. But the idea that a sheriff is the natural consequence of democratic will is ridiculous on its face, particularly considering the democratic protests for decarceration and abolition. So, I again ask the question, what people are these sheriffs talking about?
Other Reading
1) A great story in the New Yorker online about why we should still defund the police
2) Pamela Colloff did not lie. This 2010 profile of Judge Posner is awesome.
3) I am now invested in the 5-4 podcast though I constantly worry I am not cool enough to listen.