|
 free book alerthttps://twitter.com/VersoBooks/status/1271030096107798528?s=19
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Lemme preface this by saying I hadn't heard of police abolition at all before George Floyd, and all I've read on this has been online. So it's possible that my confusion could be answered by existing books and academic literature. That said, the articles I've read online and this thread are extremely confusing. A bunch of people were jumping on CelestialScribe earlier for seemingly repeating the same questions a bunch and, well, while I was reading along I felt like the answers people were putting out also kind of didn't fully answer his questions. So, like, I dunno if he has a history of being a dick elsewhere but many of the answers given legit didn't compute for me either.Pustulio posted:There will be times, rare though they are, that we'll need someone with a gun to help. Those bank robbers I mentioned will have to be brought in at some point after all, and we also have the odd spree killer here in the states anyway. For that we will need a tactical team or something like it. But there should almost be no other time when that is even on the table. Those are exceptions and should be treated as such, not the standard of preparedness. There appear to be two completely distinct things that people mean when they say abolish the police. As far as I can tell, the two positions are: 1. The state does not employ People With Guns at all, and there's literally zero possibility of state usage of force 2. We remove the current institution called "the police" but do end up with People With Guns, reconstructed under rules which are not structurally racist and do not oppress the people and I have no idea how to tell if somebody is talking about #1 or #2 when they say abolish/defund the police. Possibly because that distinction is not considered important to make? OwlFancier posted:I don't think it really matters given that 99% of the people who want complete abolition are gonna support massively scaling back the power of the police as well. But I do think it's super important to be able to tell what the difference between those two are because it's confusing as hell if you treat them the same. If somebody asks "What if there's a school shooting?" the response you would give for #1 and #2 are totally different. The answer under the first theory would be "Restructure society such that nobody commits school shootings" and the answer under the second theory would be "Call a team of People With Guns." Lumping them together seems at best confusing and at worst disingenuous?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
I mean, no the answer isn't different, because I would hope that you would prefer a society whereby school shooting didn't happen, if nothing else specifically because it has been eminently clear that you can't stop them with cops and increased militarization of schools isn't really helping either. The most effective means of stopping school shootings in the US to date has been the quarantine closing schools en masse. If your answer to "how do you deal with school shootings" is "call the other guys with guns to get into a gunfight with the shooter" then you're just demonstrating exactly the problem with cops, which is that they are the answer to every problem, even if they're provably the wrong loving answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
MORE TAXES WHEN posted:Lemme preface this by saying I hadn't heard of police abolition at all before George Floyd, and all I've read on this has been online. So it's possible that my confusion could be answered by existing books and academic literature. That said, the articles I've read online and this thread are extremely confusing. A bunch of people were jumping on CelestialScribe earlier for seemingly repeating the same questions a bunch and, well, while I was reading along I felt like the answers people were putting out also kind of didn't fully answer his questions. So, like, I dunno if he has a history of being a dick elsewhere but many of the answers given legit didn't compute for me either. To put it simply 1 is the goal and society is largely the way it ought to be 2 is the near acceptable future because of the way it really is, can't fix everything right now to ensure 1 actually has a shot of working Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:To put it simply Thanks, that makes more sense. OwlFancier posted:If your answer to "how do you deal with school shootings" is "call the other guys with guns to get into a gunfight with the shooter" then you're just demonstrating exactly the problem with cops, which is that they are the answer to every problem, even if they're provably the wrong loving answer. The reason I went with school shootings was because it was top of mind, and something discussed recently. The Oakland School Board introduced a resolution to remove cops from schools, and I attended the school board meeting to comment in support (there was an infinite number of people offering comment and I just gave up after a few hours). One of the issues considered was "What do you do in an active shooter situation?" The answer that was actually given was "We'll call the normal police and they'll handle it." I think you're working off of #1 whereas my above question is #2 (because it's literally right now happening), so, sure. 's fine. Given that the resolution might go into effect next year, however, I don't see how "call the other guys with guns to get into a gunfight with the shooter" is provably the wrong answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
MORE TAXES WHEN posted:Lemme preface this by saying I hadn't heard of police abolition at all before George Floyd, and all I've read on this has been online. So it's possible that my confusion could be answered by existing books and academic literature. That said, the articles I've read online and this thread are extremely confusing. A bunch of people were jumping on CelestialScribe earlier for seemingly repeating the same questions a bunch and, well, while I was reading along I felt like the answers people were putting out also kind of didn't fully answer his questions. So, like, I dunno if he has a history of being a dick elsewhere but many of the answers given legit didn't compute for me either. You're correct, the distinction between people who take position 1 and people who take position 2 is generally not considered important. No matter which of the two listed positions you're taking, you're still operating under the premise that the police are so fundamentally immoral that any lasting positive change must start with completely removing them. Even beyond that first step, the vast majority of police abolitionists are going to be in favor of giving Organized People With Guns a much smaller role in our society than the police currently have. To use the school shooting example you brought up, both groups would answer "Restructure society such that nobody commits school shootings" as their primary solution, but anyone who takes position 2 either views that plan as unlikely to prevent every violent crime ever or thinks that part of preventing violent crime is the deterring effect of knowing a bunch of People With Guns will show up to stop you. To throw some more examples out there, both groups are generally going to be okay with having unarmed social workers conduct wellness checks, or having anything other than our current system for traffic stops. Ultimately, the world espoused by either position looks exactly like the other one 99.9% of the time, and we don't have a great idea of exactly where and when that 1% of difference is going to pop up. Couple of side points to wrap everything up: Defund the police is not always synonymous with abolish the police, it's a short form of "remove some amount [which can be all] of funding from the police and use it to treat the systemic issues that lead to crime, rather than simply to punish people for committing crimes". It's similar, but usually less radical (and imo slightly unrealistic) because it's not based on the idea that the police as they exist now are rotten to the core and cannot be reformed. And yes, CelestialScribe has a history of being a colossal rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
MORE TAXES WHEN posted:Thanks, that makes more sense. Having People With Guns show up to a school shooting is the "wrong" answer because the school shooting still happened. The People With Guns may stop it from being worse, but there's no point at which they could show up that doesn't make a school shooting significantly worse than not having a school shooting. And school shootings are absolutely preventable, the UK hasn't had one since 1996.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Precisely, as I said before at length, you will keep answering with that despite it being a demonstrably terrible answer, the cost of which is measured in what, weekly mass shootings? And all you're ever going to suggest is "What about more cops? What about coppier cops? What about if teachers were cops?" You can't solve all, or even the vast majority of problems with cops. Cops isn't a solution now, it's just repeatedly giving the wrong answer to every question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
I think that satisfying people's material wants is given too much credit for stopping antisocial behaviors in the "zero cops" ideal. Removing people's needs does not mean removing their wants, or inherent human greed. If that was the case billionaires wouldn't exist.. At a point they'd be sated and stop collecting money. The discussion in cspam (or maybe here I am not sure actually) on the place of sex work in the socialist world comes to mind. The general consensus seemed to be that despite material needs being met there are obviously still wants that people will trade sex for. I am not of the opinion that sex work is criminal activity, but only suggesting that regardless of wants being satisfied the natural human greed will maintain money making criminal ventures much the same as they are today. Desperation is not the only reason for crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
Weird then that there are sections of most towns and cities full of middle class people who have all their needs met and who have very little interaction with the cops, then. Must just be inherently better people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Weird then that there are sections of most towns and cities full of middle class people who have all their needs met and who have very little interaction with the cops, then. Must just be inherently better people. Just because they have fewer engagements with the cops doesn’t mean there aren’t antisocial behaviours going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 10:54
|
|
|
Of course, but this is the police abolition thread, in which we argue that the police are not required to resolve antisocial behaviour, not that antisocial behaviour doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
Fewer also doesn't mean none. If you compartmentalize a large city I'm sure you can find areas with no police interaction, you make the assumption this is because their material needs are met, I believe it is due to knowledge that crime will dealt with more harshly in these wealthy areas. It seems there is a fundamental difference on the nature of man between those who think a state operated force are neccessary/unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
What on earth makes you think that crime is "dealt with more harshly" in wealthy areas? I'm pretty sure wealthy areas are not where the police murder loads of people or where most victims of incarceration come from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
For a trite example how long do you think a drug dealer would last on a street corner in a wealthy suburb compared to the inner city? Or a prostitute?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
They get their drugs and prostitutes by delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:20
|
|
|
Wealthy people don't get their drugs from dealers on their corners, or their sex work. They go to other places or they use different methods. And the fact that they are not generally bothered by the police for it suggests that neither drugs nor sex work are actually a problem and that they exist as a pretext for the police to target the poor and minorities. The wealthy are not punished for many crimes at all, either because the police simply don't bother looking or because if they do get to court, the judge will be lenient with the sentencing. Because there is the tacit understanding that for the right sort of person it is not actually a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:They get their drugs and prostitutes by delivery. Likely, or travel into areas to partake in whatever antisocial behaviors and return home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
Then what you are saying, then, is that crime in wealthy areas is not punished at all, because it is ignored or driven into poor areas, but not outside the access of the wealthy if they want to partake in "antisocial behaviour". That is literally the opposite of what you just claimed. You realise this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then what you are saying, then, is that crime in wealthy areas is not punished at all, because it is ignored or driven into poor areas, but not outside the access of the wealthy if they want to partake in "antisocial behaviour". I said it is the knowledge it will be dealt with more harshly, how exactly do you drive crime into poor areas otherwise? This is getting into the weeds anyway somewhat due to my poor example I guess. My belief I am attempting to describe is that regardless of material needs being met, without a coercive force in opposition individuals will still attempt to increase their holdings to satisfy more material wants. I myself am guilty of this as I'm sure many on the forums are , I have all my needs met and many of my wants. Yet I did not stop when my material needs were met and then redistribute my wealth to those in need, despite voting to increase taxes and support social programs and spending. Without being coerced (taxes) I continue to amass more wealth. I'm sure many leftists on these forums have received tax cuts and kept the money, despite meeting all their material needs. flashman fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
flashman posted:For a trite example how long do you think a drug dealer would last on a street corner in a wealthy suburb compared to the inner city? Or a prostitute? In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
flashman posted:I said it is the knowledge it will be dealt with more harshly, how exactly do you drive crime into poor areas otherwise? Because the police will come and hassle people for the normal crime of "existing while black in a rich neighbourhood" It is not criminal activity that is punished in wealthy areas, it is poor people existing in them. The police will not attempt to prosecute sex work or drug use in wealthy areas, what they prosecute is doing those things in a class inappropriate way, because as was the initial contention, wealthy people are not subjected to the police, they are assumed to be able to engage in whatever activity they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the police will come and hassle people for the normal crime of "existing while black in a rich neighbourhood" Wealthy people should not be above the law. Eliminating police will not make this the case though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
flashman posted:Wealthy people should not be above the law. Eliminating police will not make this the case though. Wealthy people, however, are above the law, and I suspect you would still rather like to live in their part of town. Which points back to my initial assertion, that the police are clearly not required for a desirable society. And furthermore, that having one's material needs met, is a very significant factor when it comes to eliminating the need for police. If you think that the police improve society, one would assume you would want to live where the police spend the most time, but I do not think that would be the case. I think it's just very strange that in order to fit the idea you seem to have that poor people are just inherently incapable of existing in a civilized fashion, you'd rather that everyone were subjected to brutal policing, rather than looking at the situation and asking why everyone cannot be afforded the freedom from police? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wealthy people, however, are above the law, and I suspect you would still rather like to live in their part of town. Which points back to my initial assertion, that the police are clearly not required for a desirable society. And furthermore, that having one's material needs met, is a very significant factor when it comes to eliminating the need for police. Out of interest, what do you see the future role of law enforcement is in say, investigating and prosecuting a murder? I’m trying to get a sense of how you think that type of issue works in your ideal world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wealthy people, however, are above the law, and I suspect you would still rather like to live in their part of town. Which points back to my initial assertion, that the police are clearly not required for a desirable society. And furthermore, that having one's material needs met, is a very significant factor when it comes to eliminating the need for police. This question is predicated on your assumption that crime is occurring at the same rate throughout society and that police simply deal with it in some areas and not others. A simplistic wealthy suburb vs inner city is used to make this point but for example in a small homogenous town of 50k there is no such distinction between areas and police presence is felt equally throughout. Where I was raised the drug dealers are middle class and most definitely under the scope of policing efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:one would assume you would want to live where the police spend the most time, but I do not think that would be the case. Then you'd just be plain wrong. I don't mind seeing police around any more than the mailman. Fear and dislike for cops is not nearly as prevalent as you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think it's just very strange that in order to fit the idea you seem to have that poor people are just inherently incapable of existing in a civilized fashion, you'd rather that everyone were subjected to brutal policing, rather than looking at the situation and asking why everyone cannot be afforded the freedom from police? I have elucidated what I think the police should look like in a previous post, "being subjected to brutal policing" is not what I'm talking about, I am arguing that a force tasked with enforcement of the states demands via coercion is neccessary. It cheapens your good arguments to use hyperbole like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
If you were to keep the general shape of the current justice system, which frankly I'm iffy on, I would suggest again that the model would be the kind of justice that the wealthy are subject to, which is to say the investigators are not out to coerce confessions, the accused is afforded the best quality legal representation without suffering any financial hardship from it, and sentencing should not be with the assumption that the person in question is an irredeemable abomination that needs to be subjected to the harshest punishment possible. I am skeptical that any of that could be achieved without massive changes to how the justice system works though, and its class makeup. I do not trust lawyers, judges, or investigators to not simply assume people are guilty based on race and class and to conspire to imprison people on the flimsiest pretext. There are probably people out there who have studied alternative methods and concepts of justice who would be able to suggest radical alternatives, but personally at this point I wouldn't care if you just burned the whole thing down, I think it kills and harms far more people than individual murderers do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you were to keep the general shape of the current justice system, which frankly I'm iffy on, I would suggest again that the model would be the kind of justice that the wealthy are subject to, which is to say the investigators are not out to coerce confessions, the accused is afforded the best quality legal representation without suffering any financial hardship from it, and sentencing should not be with the assumption that the person in question is an irredeemable abomination that needs to be subjected to the harshest punishment possible. My question was more about the role of individual investigators rather than the overall structure of the justice system. What does their participation in this system look like to you in an ideal world? To rid the world of detectives without anything to take their place would be...an interesting world to say the least. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:04
|
|
|
I feel like the concept of trying to establish what happened when there is some kind of wrongdoing is fairly uncontroversial? The problems arise when you have motivations on the part of the person doing that to support a specific outcome, which is related to the wider structure of the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like the concept of trying to establish what happened when there is some kind of wrongdoing is fairly uncontroversial? The problems arise when you have motivations on the part of the person doing that to support a specific outcome, which is related to the wider structure of the justice system. Is it uncontroversial? You just said we could get rid of everything and it would be better than the current system. That leads me to believe you might think the role of an investigator isn’t necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:19
|
|
|
I don't think an investigator is enormously useful without the other stuff around them, and I have a lot of issues with the other stuff around them that affects both their impartiality and the ends to which their information would be put even if they were impartial. Like I don't understand what you're asking. I clearly have a lot of issues with the way the justice system works which I have outlined because I think it has to be considered holistically, I don't know what you mean about "the role of the investigator" isolated from the system they are a part of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think an investigator is enormously useful without the other stuff around them, and I have a lot of issues with the other stuff around them that affects both their impartiality and the ends to which their information would be put even if they were impartial. I see what you’re getting at, and I agree to a large extent. Just a little shocked at the proposal that getting rid of all of it tomorrow would be a net benefit to society. I think you fail to consider the prospect that without fear of consequence, people would attempt to get away with a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
I am acting under the assumption that if you magically zapped the entire thing away tonight, people would attempt to construct a new system. I am not operating under the assumption that you could maintain a complete inaction on wrongdoing or that no wrongdoing would occur. What I am saying is that I think it is more important to dismantle and disempower the current system because it actively causes a massive amount of harm, and that I don't really care about a plan to replace it because it would be quite hard to construct something more abhorrent. I know that there are people out there with other ideas for how to achieve justice but I am sufficiently motivated simply by a dislike of the present system. I believe that alternatives invariably arise when the status quo is untenable.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am acting under the assumption that if you magically zapped the entire thing away tonight, people would attempt to construct a new system. I am not operating under the assumption that you could maintain a complete inaction on wrongdoing or that no wrongdoing would occur. This is illuminating, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
I don't think "fear of consequence" is just "fear that the cops will come after me", there are a vast number of other consequences for being an rear end in a top hat that regulate our behaviour every day, our conscience, the perception of our peer groups, our need to be accepted in society. The concept of justice, or fairness, is not imposed on people from the outside by cops, it's something that underpins how we interact with everybody. And because of that people will generally gravitate towards trying to find ways to achieve that even in exceptional circumstances. Systems of justice are, or should be, an outgrowth of that desire. And a lot of the issue I take with our current one is that I don't think it is. I think it's largely a way to justify being an rear end in a top hat by constructing a social group that "deserves" it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think "fear of consequence" is just "fear that the cops will come after me", there are a vast number of other consequences for being an rear end in a top hat that regulate our behaviour every day, our conscience, the perception of our peer groups, our need to be accepted in society. The concept of justice, or fairness, is not imposed on people from the outside by cops, it's something that underpins how we interact with everybody. And because of that people will generally gravitate towards trying to find ways to achieve that even in exceptional circumstances. Systems of justice are, or should be, an outgrowth of that desire. And a lot of the issue I take with our current one is that I don't think it is. I think it's largely a way to justify being an rear end in a top hat by constructing a social group that "deserves" it. This isn’t just about being an rear end in a top hat. I know at least two people who would have absolutely murdered someone else if they knew they could get away away with it. Two very specific circumstances, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
But even without cops there's still a significant risk of you not getting away with murder. Like people can still suspect you, people can still ostracise you if they suspect you, and especially if they have good reason to suspect you or outright proof. Societies have managed to discourage murder without the modern police force. Unless you know some extremely weird would be serial killers I guess. The main thing that stops people murdering isn't the cops, it's that people don't want to murder, for the most part. There's a lot of elements, internal and social, that discourage it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
flashman posted:I have elucidated what I think the police should look like in a previous post, "being subjected to brutal policing" is not what I'm talking about, I am arguing that a force tasked with enforcement of the states demands via coercion is neccessary. It cheapens your good arguments to use hyperbole like that. The problem is that the state demands poverty. In order for the wealthy to acquire their absurd wealth, that money has to be extracted from somewhere. Specifically, it is extracted from extremely low wages combined with reduced public services through legal and illegal tax evasion. Inevitably, those hurt most by these systems will rebel through crime or riots, and that's why you need police. Your example of drug use is perfect for this. Nobody deals drugs cuz its fun, they do it for profit. It is one of the few ways they can lift themselves out of poverty through a job that is neither demeaning nor underpaid. The idea that enforcement necessarily reduces crime ignores both the cause and reality of enforcement. Because, let's be honest, most crimes are never solved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:44
|
|
