To explore the possibilities for the future of the office of sheriff, it is important to reflect on its past. The office reached a peak in early England, and in most respects, other than the king, it was the most influential position in the country. Why then, did it fall into relative obscurity? Why was it relegated to a position of insignificant ceremonial function without any real power? It was diminished because of the sheriffs themselves. Their inability to adapt to a changing world was their undoing. Personal greed and avarice, coupled with an incapacity to set professional standards led to a contempt for the office that ultimately resulted in legislative regulation. The restrictions ultimately led to other positions taking over functions that were formally controlled by sheriffs.

If the failures of sheriffs led to the English downfall, then why did it rise again in the New World? I submit that it was because of a metamorphosis that occurred in the changing territory. The population and geographical shift within the colonies required ready made forms of offices and positions. The success of the office in Colonial America occurred because of a lack of other alternatives rather than for justification of accomplishment. The office in Colonial America held no great potential for growth and may have fallen into lackluster obscurity again if it had not been for yet another population and geographical shift. The Westward expansion of the nation uplifted the office. Had it not been for matters of violence and crime in the West, it may not have continued there with any enthusiasm.

After being neglected by criminal justice and other governmental academics in the twentieth century, yet another decline occurred. Because populations and geography cannot be relocated, the office must seek other ways to rejuvenate itself. Self-examination of the position, to inspire future growth, is fundamental to prevent a gravitational pull against projected evolution. Some of the greatest criticism about the position of sheriff lies in its political roots, which may in fact be its greatest asset. As an elected official, a sheriff can be a social force within a community. Instead of being manipulated by public will, a sheriff can represent the public's will. Being the sole law enforcement officer in which the electorate can either endorse or discharge makes the position very appealing. An appointed police official, in most cases, has strong protection of civil service that prevents removal except in extreme cases. This protection prevents community members from having a direct cause and effect on these positions. Therefore, issues of importance, particularly with regard to interest groups, can be neglected. An elected official would be more apt, or even required, to listen to issues of importance. Issues requiring a response can become a mandate by individuals, who might be less powerful with other types of administrations.

Elections represent the very foundation of our country and reflect our democracy. A sheriff can act as a representative of the community within the criminal justice system. It is inconceivable to imagine appointing a senator or choosing a member of congress from a civil service test. The very premise of our democracy is based on choosing our top executive by election every four years. "One voice one vote" has provided for individual participation in the selection process of American leaders since the inception of our government. The elective process of selecting a sheriff can be translated into a positive issue about the office rather than a negative one. Sheriffs can point to the fact that if the public is not satisfied with the job they are doing, they can be voted out.