In discussions about police administration, the sheriff's office is frequently overlooked. Historically, the tasks and roles of sheriff's departments and police departments have been fundamentally different. Sheriff's law enforcement functions have often been relegated to jurisdictions of sparse populations that cannot support a municipal police agency. Sheriffs are typically elected, as opposed to appointed counterpart police chiefs. Also, sheriffs routinely have a custodial role in the detention of prisoners not common to municipal police functions. This all changed somewhat after World War II, when populations expanded out to rural areas. This eliminated part of the distinction between sheriffs and chiefs when "big city" problems came to the country.¹⁴⁶

The twentieth century brought a marked decline in strength of sheriff's departments in many parts of the country. As law enforcement became more abundant, a curious academic neglect of the office of the sheriff resulted in serious breaks of understanding regarding the role of sheriff in the criminal justice system. Literature about policing and law enforcement analyzed the office as a jailer, court bailiff, process server, and county tax collector. Little, if any, emphasis was placed on the office in police literature, and if there was reference to the position it was generally unfavorable. In 1925, Bruce Smith's book The State Police referred to the office as a "dyeing medieval" throwback. A later book by the same author, Rural Crime Control, alluded to county government in general as the "dark continent of American politics". A 1935 book by A.E. Parker and A. Vollmer, Crime and the State Police, stated that the sheriff was an outdated law enforcement institution.¹⁴⁷

Patterns of academic neglect continued after the mid-century, even as the nation's police interest was escalating. O.W. Wilson neglected to mention sheriffs in his 1950 book, Police Administration. R.E. Clift neglected reference to the position in the 1956 edition of A Guide to Modern Police Thinking but did make small reference to the office in his third edition in 1970. George Felkenes devoted considerable discussion to the decrease and scope of the office in an inverse relationship with urbanization in his 1973 The Criminal Justice System: Its Functions and Personnel. He further observes that sheriffs were banished to only three modes of operation: (1) contract law enforcement for small or rural communities, (2) supervision of metropolitan police agencies along the east coast only, (3) civil process functions, and custodial functions as prescribed by law. Many other law enforcement journals have noted that the sheriff's law enforcement functions lacked the professional standards of larger police departments.¹⁴⁸

A strong criticism of the position came from Dana B. Brammer and James E. Hurley, who wrote A Study of the Office of Sheriff in the United States Southern Region in 1967. After they alluded to the sheriff often times being the most important, if not the sole law enforcement agency in many unincorporated areas of the South, they added:

"Unfortunately the sheriff must work under severe restrictions; (1) the county frequently is so small and/or so impoverished as to make an adequate program of law enforcement difficult to support; (2) tenure sometimes is restricted by state statute or constitution; (3) professional qualifications for the office are virtually nonexistent; (4) compensation sometimes takes the form of fees and commissions rather than a fixed salary; and (5) the time and resources for law enforcement work ordinarily are reduced by the requirement that the sheriff assume other responsibilities. For example, he usually is charged with supervision of the county jail and its prisoners, with serving civil process, with attending the courts and executing orders, and in some states with performing other duties such as collecting taxes, assisting at elections and so forth".¹⁴⁹

The elected nature of the office has been cause for the most serious indictments of the office. Allegations regarding a sheriff being required to participate in partisan politics in order to hold his office is the most prevalent criticism. Yet in reality, all law enforcement executives are politicians in one form or another. Some may refute this assertion, but only out of misguided notions that politicians are evil or that an administrator cannot be a politician and a professional manager at the same time. Realistically, a politician is nothing more than a person accountable to the public for decisions made in the performance of duty. Certainly a police chief or police commissioner could fall into this category as easily as a sheriff.¹⁵⁰

Stereotyped movie and television characterizations of sheriffs have almost never enhanced the stature of the office. Especially during the 1960's, when the United States was in an era of social unrest, sheriffs were held in a contemptuous light for their attempts to maintain peace. Southern sheriffs were cast in a critical light in media portrayals as dismal creatures attempting to restrict the civil rights progress of black Americans. Television programs like "The Dukes of Hazzard", "B.J. and the Bear", and movies like "Smokey and the Bandit", painted sheriffs as corrupt, lazy, stupid, inept, and not even minimally effective. During the same time, other media representations of big city police departments were depicting policemen as smart, tough, attractive, compassionate, and able to solve the toughest crimes with heroic and brilliant efforts. As the image of sheriffs was being tarnished the counterpart police officers image was being polished. This made for a vivid contrast. The appearance of sheriffs was of ineffective creatures that had not evolved from the Wild West period while more modern police agencies were held out as paragons of excellence.¹⁵¹