In recent years, high-profile police shootings have shaken public confidence in the ability of our justice system to hold law enforcement accountable. The issue of who investigates and prosecutes these cases has become a focal point for advocates, policymakers, and concerned citizens alike. In New York State, the Attorney General (AG) currently serves as the special prosecutor in cases involving police shootings of unarmed civilians. While this setup may seem logical, it is not without significant flaws. To restore and strengthen public trust, it’s time to change the system: the power to appoint an independent prosecutor should move from the Attorney General to the Governor’s office.
The rationale for this shift is clear. While the AG’s office undoubtedly plays a critical role in upholding the law, the fact that the Attorney General is an elected official introduces an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict lies not in personal bias or lack of capability, but in the pressures of political accountability and the need to maintain public favor for re-election. When an elected official, even one as capable as the AG, investigates cases involving law enforcement, there will always be a shadow of doubt: Are political considerations influencing the investigation? Could the outcome be swayed by a desire to maintain relationships with powerful police unions or other political forces? Public confidence demands that these questions be put to rest—and that can only happen with a truly independent special prosecutor, appointed by the Governor, who is free from electoral concerns.
Independence Over Politics
The Attorney General’s role as both a law enforcer and an elected official creates a tension that is impossible to ignore. Even if the AG conducts a fair and unbiased investigation, the perception of potential political influence can undermine public trust in the outcome. In a democracy, perception often carries as much weight as reality. The appearance of independence is just as important as actual impartiality when it comes to restoring faith in the justice system.
The appointment of an independent special prosecutor by the Governor would eliminate the direct political pressures that elected officials face. Unlike the AG, who must balance their prosecutorial duties with the demands of electoral politics, an independent prosecutor could focus solely on the facts and the law, unencumbered by political calculations. This would send a powerful message to the public: that justice is being pursued with integrity, free from external pressures.
Specialization and Focus
Another key advantage of shifting the power of appointment to the Governor lies in the ability to choose a prosecutor with specific expertise and focus. Independent prosecutors appointed on a case-by-case basis can be selected for their particular experience in handling complex investigations, including those involving police misconduct. The AG’s office, while well-resourced, handles a wide range of legal duties, from consumer protection to environmental enforcement. By contrast, an independent prosecutor appointed solely for the purpose of investigating a police shooting can devote undivided attention to the case.
This singular focus ensures that the prosecutor is not juggling multiple political or legal obligations. Instead, they are tasked with thoroughly investigating the specific incident, reviewing evidence, and determining whether charges should be brought without distraction or competing interests.
Conflict of Interest Concerns
While the AG is independent of local district attorneys, the office still maintains ongoing relationships with law enforcement agencies throughout the state. The AG’s office often works closely with these agencies on a variety of cases, which can lead to an inherent conflict of interest. How can the same office that defends law enforcement in some matters also be expected to hold officers accountable in others? Even when the AG’s office acts with full integrity, the close relationship with law enforcement presents a conflict that may erode public trust.
An independent prosecutor, by contrast, would not be subject to these same relationships or entanglements. They would come to the case with fresh eyes and no prior working relationship with the officers or departments under investigation. This distance is crucial for ensuring that the investigation is seen as impartial and untainted by any previous alliances or cooperation.
Public Trust and Transparency
The central goal of any investigation into police shootings must be to pursue justice and truth, but public perception is critical. As protests in cities across the nation have shown, there is a deep and widespread mistrust of the current systems in place to investigate police misconduct. If the public does not believe in the impartiality of the investigation, the result will be continued unrest and further erosion of trust in our institutions.
By appointing an independent prosecutor from outside the AG’s office, we can take a meaningful step toward rebuilding that trust. A special prosecutor chosen by the Governor—someone who has no political stake in the outcome—would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability. Such an appointment would signal that the state is serious about holding law enforcement accountable, regardless of political or institutional relationships.
Conclusion: A Path Forward
The time has come to reconsider how New York handles investigations into police shootings. The current system, which places the Attorney General in the role of special prosecutor, is flawed—not because of any failure on the part of the AG’s office, but because of the inherent conflicts that come with being an elected official.
By shifting the responsibility of appointing independent prosecutors to the Governor, we can ensure that these sensitive and critical investigations are handled with the impartiality, focus, and transparency that the public deserves. New York should seize this opportunity to lead the way in reforming how we hold law enforcement accountable, ensuring that justice is served, and that the public can once again trust the institutions sworn to protect them.
