F The Police, and then what? A police/justice abolition thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > F The Police, and then what? A police/justice abolition thread

«‹›47 »

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

That too, even with the cops, there's like a 40% chance you'll get away with murder in the US.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 13:51

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

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.

But isn�t that the point of a law enforcement arm? People can suspect the wrong person all the time. Without that law enforcement arm, it�s really just vigilante justice. And by the way, the two people I mention - their motivation would be seen as sympathetic by any reasonable person. So in that circumstance...is anyone really going to care? Would people turn a blind eye? Absolutely. Is that better than the current system? I�d argue no.

I recognize you explicitly said you believe in some type of law enforcement, but I think you should give more weight on the idea that the current system might be bad at solving crime, but it might be better than you think at actually preventing it in the first place.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

CelestialScribe posted:

But isn�t that the point of a law enforcement arm? People can suspect the wrong person all the time. Without that law enforcement arm, it�s really just vigilante justice. And by the way, the two people I mention - their motivation would be seen as sympathetic by any reasonable person. So in that circumstance...is anyone really going to care? Would people turn a blind eye? Absolutely. Is that better than the current system? I�d argue no.

I recognize you explicitly said you believe in some type of law enforcement, but I think you should give more weight on the idea that the current system might be bad at solving crime, but it might be better than you think at actually preventing it in the first place.

What makes it not vigilante justice with the cops? Why are the cops not gonna suspect the wrong person based on race or class and then make the evidence fit or force a confession? What motivation do they have not to do that?

I also would point this out again:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

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.

Why would I think they prevent crime? They create crime. Many crimes literally exist because of the need to enforce inequality in society and the cops do that by targeting people for made up crimes that should not be crimes.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:48

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

What makes it not vigilante justice with the cops? Why are the cops not gonna suspect the wrong person based on race or class and then make the evidence fit or force a confession? What motivation do they have not to do that?

I�m not denying that at all. At the same time, they do solve murders. Maybe they only solve 40% - but are you comfortable living in a world where anyone can kill anyone, with potentially no consequence from society? We were rightfully horrified by Ahmaud Arbery. If we got rid of homocide detectives tomorrow, crimes like that would happen more, not less.

Cops scare me - the absence of homocide detectives from society scares me more. This isn�t to say keep the current system or even reform it. It�s saying, i think you have way, way too much faith in people.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:55

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

Cpt_Obvious posted:

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.

This seems an indictment of modern democracy rather than the police though. If the police are performing their duty as the enforcement arm of the states will appropriately then the answer is to change the states will, not the police.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:57

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

As I said, I think people would construct a system to deal with things like murder, literally every society in history has done that.

But I do not think a 60% conviction rate (not necessarily accurate, mind you, it just means somebody got the blame for it) is a good enough justification for, like, the entire rest of the wrongs with the justice system.

I think that without the police and their role in creating inequality and strife in society, we could figure out a way to deal with murderers and perhaps have far fewer of them to deal with, and we also wouldn't have the massive amount of suffering the justice system causes.

Your choice is not everything as it is now, or no laws or customs everyone kill everyone for fun.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 12:59

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

As I said, I think people would construct a system to deal with things like murder, literally every society in history has done that.

Some of those systems are better than others.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 13:03

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I would ask why you feel so convinced that ours is the best of all possible systems.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 13:04

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

I would ask why you feel so convinced that ours is the best of all possible systems.

I�ve said many times that it isn�t.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 13:07

Pustulio: Mar 21, 2012

Drug dealers are always brought up, along with their support structure when removing police is brought up.

Think about what would happen, let's say we eliminate the police, we still have drug dealers now but what exactly is the harm they will do? Suddenly the danger of their profession is gone, they have no risk of being executed or imprisoned for life by doing what they do. They no longer fear snitches and their supply lines become a lot easier to manage. This sounds like a recipe for super confident gangsters but you know what they won't be doing?Killing innocent people because they think they might get caught. The average drug dealer isn't hanging out on a street corner shouting "Get your heroin here!", they have client lists and schedules and so on, keeping that stuff secure becomes a lot easier when you know you won't get ratted out to the cops. People could even leave the profession without those they leave behind feeling like they could be loose ends.

That example is intentionally stupid too because we aren't saying don't do anything with the resources freed up by not paying for the cops, improved social safety nets, education, and economic opportunities would also go a ways towards making the profession unpopular. As of course, would legalizing most drugs, and without the police unions fighting tooth and nail against those measures that would seem possible to do right?

We'd surely need investigators for some things, no one is saying we'd just let murderers walk free, at least, not more than they already do, which is rather a lot. But does a detective or CSI need a gun? I would argue that the use or threat of force during an interview makes people less likely to speak honestly, and statistics about torture and "enhanced interrogation" back me up on that. The mystery movie scenario where the killer is unmasked by the detective in a room full of people and tries to shoot his way out is... unrealistic at best, more likely is a killer attempting to flee before his interview even begins. But let's say our detective does get put in danger, he goes to the bereaved ex husbands home and confronts him in his home office, alone, in defiance of all policy or good sense, point by point he breaks the criminals alibi and discredits his evidence. Then the ex pulls a gun.

Just let him go.

The evidence is all there, he can be captured another time or live the rest of his life in hiding. It doesn't need to be a shootout, life isn't an action movie, and our detective is paid and trained for this very thing, to risk himself so that citizens don't come to harm. A gun doesn't help with that, because the thing we forget with criminals is that they too are citizens and committing a crime doesn't revoke the protections they deserve. Our detective needs to put his life on the line to protect people from the murderer, but also to protect the murderer from anyone else, because that is the only way the law actually becomes equitable. If he draws a gun then he has failed, if he shoots the murderer dead, even in self defense, he has dramatically failed. A situation where the law enforcement officer survives and the criminal dies is a failure of the system, because yet another citizen has died despite the presence of a person sworn to prevent that very thing.

We need our protectors to internalize that idea, the current police force cannot do that, it is impossible to even contemplate for the system we have in place, it does more harm to people both in the literal physical sense via shootings and beatings, and in the metaphorical or spiritual sense by making us think that it is okay, that we can't and shouldn't be better and that one action makes someone less than human and deserving of the rights we think we have. They do so much harm now that literally having no law enforcement system at all would be less damaging. So the argument that edge cases would happen under the various new systems that are proposed is baffling to me. Okay yes, it will be harder to stop crimes in progress, but they are hardly stopped in progress now so who the gently caress cares?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 13:57

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

flashman posted:

This seems an indictment of modern democracy rather than the police though. If the police are performing their duty as the enforcement arm of the states will appropriately then the answer is to change the states will, not the police.

It is an indictment of capitalism, not democracy. Never forget that the earliest forms of policing in the United States were slave patrols.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:10

Mat Cauthon: Jan 2, 2006; The more tragic things get,
the more I feel like laughing.

Mariame Kaba in the New York Fuckin Times talking abolition :siren:

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

posted:

Congressional Democrats want to make it easier to identify and prosecute police misconduct; Joe Biden wants to give police departments $300 million. But efforts to solve police violence through liberal reforms like these have failed for nearly a century.

Enough. We can�t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.

There is not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves. In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations to protect the status quo.

So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man�s neck until he dies, that�s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job.

Now two weeks of nationwide protests have led some to call for defunding the police, while others argue that doing so would make us less safe.

The first thing to point out is that police officers don�t do what you think they do. They spend most of their time responding to noise complaints, issuing parking and traffic citations, and dealing with other noncriminal issues. We�ve been taught to think they �catch the bad guys; they chase the bank robbers; they find the serial killers,� said Alex Vitale, the coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College, in an interview with Jacobin. But this is �a big myth,� he said. �The vast majority of police officers make one felony arrest a year. If they make two, they�re cop of the month.�

We can�t simply change their job descriptions to focus on the worst of the worst criminals. That�s not what they are set up to do.

Second, a �safe� world is not one in which the police keep black and other marginalized people in check through threats of arrest, incarceration, violence and death.

I�ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power � whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent � here�s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.

History is instructive, not because it offers us a blueprint for how to act in the present but because it can help us ask better questions for the future.

The Lexow Committee undertook the first major investigation into police misconduct in New York City in 1894. At the time, the most common complaint against the police was about �clubbing� � �the routine bludgeoning of citizens by patrolmen armed with nightsticks or blackjacks,� as the historian Marilynn Johnson has written.

The Wickersham Commission, convened to study the criminal justice system and examine the problem of Prohibition enforcement, offered a scathing indictment in 1931, including evidence of brutal interrogation strategies. It put the blame on a lack of professionalism among the police.

After the 1967 urban uprisings, the Kerner Commission found that �police actions were �final� incidents before the outbreak of violence in 12 of the 24 surveyed disorders.� Its report listed a now-familiar set of recommendations, like working to build �community support for law enforcement� and reviewing police operations �in the ghetto, to ensure proper conduct by police officers.�

These commissions didn�t stop the violence; they just served as a kind of counterinsurgent function each time police violence led to protests. Calls for similar reforms were trotted out in response to the brutal police beating of Rodney King in 1991 and the rebellion that followed, and again after the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The final report of the Obama administration�s President�s Task Force on 21st Century Policing resulted in procedural tweaks like implicit-bias training, police-community listening sessions, slight alterations of use-of-force policies and systems to identify potentially problematic officers early on.

But even a member of the task force, Tracey Meares, noted in 2017, �policing as we know it must be abolished before it can be transformed.�

The philosophy undergirding these reforms is that more rules will mean less violence. But police officers break rules all the time. Look what has happened over the past few weeks � police officers slashing tires, shoving old men on camera, and arresting and injuring journalists and protesters. These officers are not worried about repercussions any more than Daniel Pantaleo, the former New York City police officer whose chokehold led to Eric Garner�s death; he waved to a camera filming the incident. He knew that the police union would back him up and he was right. He stayed on the job for five more years.

Minneapolis had instituted many of these �best practices� but failed to remove Derek Chauvin from the force despite 17 misconduct complaints over nearly two decades, culminating in the entire world watching as he knelt on George Floyd�s neck for almost nine minutes.

Why on earth would we think the same reforms would work now? We need to change our demands. The surest way of reducing police violence is to reduce the power of the police, by cutting budgets and the number of officers.

But don�t get me wrong. We are not abandoning our communities to violence. We don�t want to just close police departments. We want to make them obsolete.

We should redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs. If we did this, there would be less need for the police in the first place.

We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society. Trained �community care workers� could do mental-health checks if someone needs help. Towns could use restorative-justice models instead of throwing people in prison.

What about rape? The current approach hasn�t ended it. In fact most rapists never see the inside of a courtroom. Two-thirds of people who experience sexual violence never report it to anyone. Those who file police reports are often dissatisfied with the response. Additionally, police officers themselves commit sexual assault alarmingly often. A study in 2010 found that sexual misconduct was the second most frequently reported form of police misconduct. In 2015, The Buffalo News found that an officer was caught for sexual misconduct every five days.

When people, especially white people, consider a world without the police, they envision a society as violent as our current one, merely without law enforcement � and they shudder. As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm.

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn�t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.

When the streets calm and people suggest once again that we hire more black police officers or create more civilian review boards, I hope that we remember all the times those efforts have failed.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:31

chinigz: Nov 12, 2016

Mat Cauthon posted:

Mariame Kaba in the New York Fuckin Times talking abolition

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

The 'what about rape' paragraph doesn't really answer it's own question, just points to a bunch of bad things and handwaves. What would society do with reports of rape in absence of the police? I guarantee rates of sexual assault will increase once the chance of getting caught goes even lower.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:47

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

Cpt_Obvious posted:

It is an indictment of capitalism, not democracy. Never forget that the earliest forms of policing in the United States were slave patrols.

Democracy is not guaranteed to produce the outcomes you desire.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:48

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

flashman posted:

Democracy is not guaranteed to produce the outcomes you desire.

I mean maybe we should actually try democracy first?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:56

CocoaNuts: Jun 12, 2020

So many recent lessons learned and applied here:

https://twitter.com/MarisaKabas/status/1271624839183380482

# ? Jun 13, 2020 14:57

Mat Cauthon: Jan 2, 2006; The more tragic things get,
the more I feel like laughing.

chinigz posted:

The 'what about rape' paragraph doesn't really answer it's own question, just points to a bunch of bad things and handwaves. What would society do with reports of rape in absence of the police? I guarantee rates of sexual assault will increase once the chance of getting caught goes even lower.

You have no way of knowing that beyond your own fatalistic assumptions about sexual violence, also look up the investigation clearance rate for rape and sexual assault as well as the number of untested rape kits sitting in police evidence lockers in your state right now and get back to me.

Maybe read this paper on the prevalence of police sexual violence while you're at it:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3403676

# ? Jun 13, 2020 15:30

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

flashman posted:

Democracy is not guaranteed to produce the outcomes you desire.

Like slavery? Seems like whenever it produces lovely outcomes, it requires systemic state violence to enforce it. Like the slave patrols. Maybe abolishing state violence would necessarily bring about a more equitable system.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 15:32

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Like slavery? Seems like whenever it produces lovely outcomes, it requires systemic state violence to enforce it. Like the slave patrols. Maybe abolishing state violence would necessarily bring about a more equitable system.

A collection of warlords does not seem a preferable option.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 15:55

chinigz: Nov 12, 2016

Mat Cauthon posted:

You have no way of knowing that beyond your own fatalistic assumptions about sexual violence, also look up the investigation clearance rate for rape and sexual assault as well as the number of untested rape kits sitting in police evidence lockers in your state right now and get back to me.

Maybe read this paper on the prevalence of police sexual violence while you're at it:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3403676

Everyone ITT knows clearance rates are low, kits go untested and it should be illegal for police to have sex with people in police custody. But police do arrest and prosecute sexual assault offenders, and without that disincentive it seems reasonable to worry that rates of sexual assault might increase - if the article is advocating abolition of the police it seems reasonable to ask what the process will be instead.

It feels like saying 'some cancers are highly lethal, and highly paid oncologists cure them only x% of the time, so we should abolish oncology'.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 16:17

Yuzenn: Mar 31, 2011; Be weary when you see oppression disguised as progression

The Spirit told me to use discernment and a Smith n Wesson at my discretion

Practice heavy self reflection, avoid self deception
If you lost, get re-direction

CelestialScribe posted:

but are you comfortable living in a world where anyone can kill anyone, with potentially no consequence from society? We were rightfully horrified by Ahmaud Arbery. If we got rid of homocide detectives tomorrow, crimes like that would happen more, not less.

What you are supposing happens right now with police and their ability to kill with impunity, and your example of Ahmaud Arbery is the exact symptom of a larger problem. It's because white supremacy also holds up the policing system, regular citizens are also empowered to utilize the same vigilante justice that the police do.

If you were to poof the cops right now, I would at least have the option of firing back at those who would seek to cause me harm. As a black person I am not currently afforded that right because my being armed is strictly a danger to my well being if the police get involved, if nothing more than the laws don't apply to me the same way they do others, and that's completely intentional.

I would be completely more comfortable with getting rid of the police over night and living with whatever system comes from that because statistically it's likely more safer for my direct well being. "Justice" "Law" and whatever you may call our current system is applied to us negatively and disproportionately.

chinigz posted:

The 'what about rape' paragraph doesn't really answer it's own question, just points to a bunch of bad things and handwaves. What would society do with reports of rape in absence of the police? I guarantee rates of sexual assault will increase once the chance of getting caught goes even lower.

Again, Police do not prevent rapes they respond to them. There is a staggering number of unprocessed rape kits all across America. Police are not a deterrent of rape, and as a matter of fact aren't a deterrent of much of any crime at all.

Kaba's point of the article is not that there cannot be something that arises to deal with these things, it's just that abolishment is step 1 to creating whatever that entity or entities are.

flashman posted:

A collection of warlords does not seem a preferable option.

We have them and they are called Police Chiefs and Police Union Heads.

Lets take the word Police out of this at all. As a black person, our reality is that there are is an ARMY of armed roving band of vigilantes that are terrorizing and killing us, raping us (physically as well as economically as shown in the many Mat articles written) and are backed up by the full power of the law and state to do so.

If Black people were a Country, we would be at literal war with this set of folks. However, the State condones them because they are enforcing the explicit will that necessitated their creation and it's impossible to go to war with the State. We have no recourse to fight back against this, currently.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 16:50

Mat Cauthon: Jan 2, 2006; The more tragic things get,
the more I feel like laughing.

chinigz posted:

Everyone ITT knows clearance rates are low, kits go untested and it should be illegal for police to have sex with people in police custody. But police do arrest and prosecute sexual assault offenders, and without that disincentive it seems reasonable to worry that rates of sexual assault might increase - if the article is advocating abolition of the police it seems reasonable to ask what the process will be instead.

It feels like saying 'some cancers are highly lethal, and highly paid oncologists cure them only x% of the time, so we should abolish oncology'.

This is so disingenuous. Abolitionists have laid out a process through which we transition away from the current carceral state into something new that INCLUDES mechanisms for dealing with violent crime (without the oppressive, nigh genocidal system we currently have) AS WELL AS creating structures that reduce those crimes (based in increasing equality, providing basic needs, deconstructing white supremacy/patriarchy/capitalism, etc). Abolitionists are explicitly clear about the fact that if we defund police and put those funds towards building community-based structures then we will have to formulate new responses to violent crime as part of that process.

From a different article written by Kaba:

posted:

History offers evidence of the intractability of the problem of police violence. What should we do then? Quite simply, we must end the police. The hegemony of police is so complete that we often can’t begin to imagine a world without the institution. We are too reliant on the police. In fact, the police increase their legitimacy through all of the non-police related “work” that they assume: including doing “wellness” and “mental health checks.” Why should armed people be deployed to do the work of community members and social workers? Why have we become so comfortable with ceding so much power to the police? Any discussion of reform must begin with the following questions: How will we decrease the numbers of police, and how will we defund the institution?

On the way to abolition, we can take a number of intermediate steps to shrink the police force and to restructure our relationships with each other. These include:

1. Organizing for dramatic decreases of police budgets and redirecting those funds to other social goods (Defunding the police).

2. Ending cash bail

3. Overturning police bills of rights.

4. Abolishing police unions.

5. Crowding out the police in our communities.

6. Disarming the police.

7. Creating abolitionist messages that penetrate the public consciousness to disrupt the idea that cops=safety.

8. Building community-based interventions that address harms without relying on police.

9. Evaluating any reforms based on these criteria.

10. Thinking through the end of the police and imagining alternatives.

Importantly, we must reject all talk about policing and the overall criminal punishment system being “broken” or “not working.” By rhetorically constructing the criminal punishment system as “broken,” reform is reaffirmed and abolition is painted as unrealistic and unworkable. Those of us who maintain that reform is actually impossible within the current context are positioned as unreasonable and naïve. Ideological formations often operate invisibly to delineate and define what is acceptable discourse. Challenges to dominant ideological formations about “justice” are met with anger, ridicule or are simply ignored. This is in the service of those who benefit from the current system and to enforce white supremacy and anti-blackness. The losers under this injustice system are the young people I know and love.

From here: https://thenewinquiry.com/summer-heat/

No one is suggesting that crime will go away overnight but you (and whoever else posits the same circular logic arguments) are straight up lying if you say that 1) abolitionists have not provided a blueprint and 2) that anyone is calling for some sort of lawless society.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 16:57

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

flashman posted:

A collection of warlords does not seem a preferable option.

You have 0 proof that a collection of warlords would result when state violence is removed. In fact, the United States existed for over a century without any police at all. Modern policing was only widespread around the 1880s in the United States. I might remind you that the rise of organized crime (warlords) were a direct result of police violence directed at civilians (prohibition).

Frankly, I don't think people will risk their lives to live in a constant state of warfare if they weren't starving. And food is downright plentiful right now even if the distribution is lopsided.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 16:58

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

Cpt_Obvious posted:

You have 0 proof that a collection of warlords would result when state violence is removed. In fact, the United States existed for over a century without any police at all. Modern policing was only widespread around the 1880s in the United States. I might remind you that the rise of organized crime (warlords) were a direct result of police violence directed at civilians (prohibition).

Frankly, I don't think people will risk their lives to live in a constant state of warfare if they weren't starving. And food is downright plentiful right now even if the distribution is lopsided.

Ah yes the idyllic Pinkerton era.

Edit: am I wrong in assuming most people in this thread are leftists? It seems I'm arguing against libertarians which is leaving me confused.

flashman fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 17:13

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

flashman posted:

Ah yes the idyllic Pinkerton era.

Edit: am I wrong in assuming most people in this thread are leftists? It seems I'm arguing against libertarians which is leaving me confused.

Edit: Deleted. It's obvious you have no interest in actually discussing the issue, so I'll disengage.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 17:21

Aegis: Apr 28, 2004; The sign kinda says it all.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

You have 0 proof that a collection of warlords would result when state violence is removed. In fact, the United States existed for over a century without any police at all. Modern policing was only widespread around the 1880s in the United States. I might remind you that the rise of organized crime (warlords) were a direct result of police violence directed at civilians (prohibition).

Just a point of fact, but this last bit isn't true. The Sicilian mafia (as an example) were present in New York in the 1890s, and may have been present in New Orleans as early as the 1870s.

See, e.g.,: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Morello and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_crime_family#Early_history

# ? Jun 13, 2020 17:39

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

It's pretty ridiculous to claim that the patchwork of private guards and bounty hunters and constript night watches that made up pre-profession police forces didn't amount to state sanctioned violence. They were directly controlled and funded by the landed wealthy who coincidentally also made up the local government, and frequently were little better than lynch mobs acting at their orders. Hell, it wasn't uncommon for the wealthy local judges and magistrates to directly control said private militias, completely with state approval. If anything this was even worse in smaller communities, like the frontier, where judges and sheriffs notoriously were allowed to act as local barons with no repercussions so long as they kept revolt suppressed and sufficiently protected property.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 17:53

flashman: Dec 16, 2003

Simply the fact that they were private enterprises put them a step removed from a force that serves nominally at the behest of the state, therefore the electorate.

Do you not think that, in this vein of discussion, an end on the state monopoly on force won't result in Exxon and Google contracting Blackwater to protect their interests?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 18:07

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

I legit don't understand "we didn't have police before 18xx, we can do that again" - do you think rapes and murders didn't happen, probably even more often than today? I'll accept completely that police cause or create a bunch of crime, and our lovely capitalist society and income disparity create a bunch too, but making sure everyone's material needs are met is both a giant ask and not going to solve everything. Look at Harvey Weinstein, for example - by all accounts he had all the money and influence he wanted, was raised fine, etc. and he's still a rapist rear end in a top hat. Clearly our current system didn't handle him well - he got away with poo poo for years - but how does having no police improve that? How does "Building community-based interventions that address harms without relying on police" work with people who legitimately don't have any desire to stop committing violence on people? If it doesn't, and the answer is "yah serial killers and rapists are going to be a issue, probably they'll end up getting lynched" I'm a bit uncomfortable with that.

Can we not come up with something better than both a) the current system and b) what we had prior to the current system?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 18:34

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Sure we can. It's been endlessly discussed what we can do with all the money currently wasted on police. Having the perfect plan should not be prerequisite to drawing down and defunding our police forces as they exist, because any such requirement will be used as pretext to endlessly put off the necessary and push for milquetoast and useless reform like "8 can't do poo poo."

Somehow we keep coming back to "there will be total chaos and no crimes will ever get solved" even when it's made very clear that there would be a new structure inevitably put into place.

People arguing in favor of the current system feel personally protected by it and are terrified that if we try to make anything better for anyone else that could change

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 19:04

Yuzenn: Mar 31, 2011; Be weary when you see oppression disguised as progression

The Spirit told me to use discernment and a Smith n Wesson at my discretion

Practice heavy self reflection, avoid self deception
If you lost, get re-direction

Harold Fjord posted:

People arguing in favor of the current system feel personally protected by it and are terrified that if we try to make anything better for anyone else that could change

It's an implicit benefit of white privilege, the current police and justice system benefit them. Who would want to be treated like how black people get treated? If suddenly all the white stoners got arrested and jailed at the same rate at black ones, the law would get changed overnight.

It's my biggest gripe about white allys and the white liberal, they are benefiting just as much as any other white person so will they actually go as far as to truly level the playing field? It's a tough thing to ask for folks that have had an advantage for so long. You have to be exceptional to make it out of the black poor communities and there are more than enough idiots coasting off old money made off of the backs of others. I'm speaking in generalities but at any time any white person can tap into their whiteness even to the point of weaponization and that's a really tough thing to give up.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 20:08

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

CelestialScribe posted:

I�m not denying that at all. At the same time, they do solve murders. Maybe they only solve 40% - but are you comfortable living in a world where anyone can kill anyone, with potentially no consequence from society? We were rightfully horrified by Ahmaud Arbery. If we got rid of homocide detectives tomorrow, crimes like that would happen more, not less.

Cops scare me - the absence of homocide detectives from society scares me more. This isn�t to say keep the current system or even reform it. It�s saying, i think you have way, way too much faith in people.

The stat for Chicago PD on shootings is like 5%, and they literally run torture sites to force black people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.

The police should scare you more.

Homicide work isn't like you see on TV or the movies.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 21:57

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

It is perhaps helpful to remember that the police are deployed to break strikes and suppress poor white political power too. The police are not your friend unless you're middle class and white.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 21:59

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

chinigz posted:

The 'what about rape' paragraph doesn't really answer it's own question, just points to a bunch of bad things and handwaves. What would society do with reports of rape in absence of the police? I guarantee rates of sexual assault will increase once the chance of getting caught goes even lower.

You're full of poo poo. Most women don't go to police now. The chance of getting caught now is nearly nonexistent.

A friend of mine who's a multiple rape survivor said the one time she went to the cops, they made her feel more unsafe than her rapist did, and that was her last time going to them.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:01

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

Harold Fjord posted:

Somehow we keep coming back to "there will be total chaos and no crimes will ever get solved" even when it's made very clear that there would be a new structure inevitably put into place

Right! So lets talk about that structure!

Everyone here - in the goddamn police / justice reform thread - is unwilling to even put forward ideas or theories about what their new world would look like. Instead there is just a lot of hand waving about �communities�.

But I have to say, if everyone here including myself wants police to be abolished and something else put in their place, then people will demand answers to these types of questions. They�re not going to vote for a new system of justice that equates to �we will figure it out as we go along�.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:26

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

CelestialScribe posted:

Right! So lets talk about that structure!

Everyone here - in the goddamn police / justice reform thread - is unwilling to even put forward ideas or theories about what their new world would look like. Instead there is just a lot of hand waving about �communities�.

But I have to say, if everyone here including myself wants police to be abolished and something else put in their place, then people will demand answers to these types of questions. They�re not going to vote for a new system of justice that equates to �we will figure it out as we go along�.

How about you start: what specific problems do you think the current police have, what do you think are some viable options to solve them?

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:35

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

CelestialScribe posted:

Right! So lets talk about that structure!

Everyone here - in the goddamn police / justice reform thread - is unwilling to even put forward ideas or theories about what their new world would look like. Instead there is just a lot of hand waving about �communities�.

Bullshit. I asked you more than once what you wanted to have more detail about, and you disappeared for a day and never responded to me.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:36

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

fool of sound posted:

How about you start: what specific problems do you think the current police have, what do you think are some viable options to solve them?

My biggest problems with police right now is that they�re simply trying to do too many things and without proper training.

I�d like to see all police taken off traffic enforcement. I�d want a separate agency - unarmed (maybe a weapon locked in the boot of a car or something) - responsible for enforcing traffic laws but with an emphasis on avoiding fines. Eg. Driving without a license? No problem - you get a warning the first time. Second time? Your license cost goes up by 100 bucks or whatever. Hey, your tags are out of date. No problem, got your credit card? Pay it on the spot right here. Brake lights out? No problem - let�s replace them right now, no charge. That sort of thing.

This agency should never have to attend traffic accidents. Just medical and fire authorities.

Secondly I�d like to see a separate law enforcement arm for domestic disputes. A trained worker or equivalent paired with a type of (unarmed) security guard who waits outside. First worker goes in, assesses the situation, etc, then determines next steps.

Thirdly, I�d like to see street cops or beat cops replaced with a new arm that is essentially �community safety�. These are the people you call when poo poo is happening on the street (again, unarmed). People fighting outside a nightclub? Those people go in, assess the situation, get the people what they need to calm down, and move on.

I use my noise complaint earlier. These would be the folks you call. Critically, this group wouldn�t have a lot of authority to escalate matters unless in dire circumstances.

Fourth, an investigative unit. You could break this up into major and minor crimes. Everything from �my bike was stolen� to detectives. Again, mostly unarmed.

These are just some initial ideas I�ve thought about for a while.

Edit: I should add that none of this works unless these agencies are staffed according to diversity quotas based on the communities in which they operate.

For instance, the sexual assault investigative unit could be mostly women.

CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 13, 2020

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:48

E-Tank: Aug 4, 2011

CelestialScribe posted:

Right! So lets talk about that structure!

Everyone here - in the goddamn police / justice reform thread - is unwilling to even put forward ideas or theories about what their new world would look like. Instead there is just a lot of hand waving about �communities�.

But I have to say, if everyone here including myself wants police to be abolished and something else put in their place, then people will demand answers to these types of questions. They�re not going to vote for a new system of justice that equates to �we will figure it out as we go along�.

There's a few issues regarding this, in that what we *want* it to be would be changing much more than just replacing cops with something better. But building off that:

I'm envisioning a wide array of ways for people to help out. Things like branches of this community based support based around social services, de-escalation, information and resource support. Much more of an emphasis on providing what is necessary than a boot to the throat. Someone calls in, saying something was stolen. Instead of sending an armed cop to basically play clerk and then do nothing, we have someone go out that gets a detailed description and starts networking with other people. If the item stolen is likely to be fenced or sold for quick cash, instead of simply putting the paper on the pile of reports, they go out to pawn shops and other things to alert them about a potential stolen item.

Someone calls and says someone is suffering a public breakdown and may be in danger of self harming or they're in need of assistance. Instead of sending jack booted thugs to shoot them when the person acts erratically, a duo is sent to try and offer aid and ensure that they're not going to hurt either themselves or someone else. They don't carry guns, they may have tools to try and help subdue people, but turns out when someone's having a melt down, beating the poo poo out of them doesn't help.

In the rare cases that there is actual violence being threatened, highly trained and skilled members would, meeting the violence level expected, bring to bear enough force to hopefully incapacitate. These members would be required to undergo literal years of training before being given this power, and they are only called in when an actual threat is believed to be present. Anyone who calls in claiming danger that turns out to be grossly exaggerated to try and provoke a bigger response would be penalized in some way.

All of these roles would of course be subject to review by members of the community that they are operating around, and if any member is found to be detrimental, they are held accountable and can be recalled at any time.

If we're going the full whole hog anarchical fantasy: This job would be one of many rotating options people would be able to do, depending on capabilities and personal strengths, and if anyone is proven to be an ill fit, either during training or in action made, they're rotated out into some other role, or job.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 22:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 13:51

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

E-Tank posted:

There's a few issues regarding this, in that what we *want* it to be would be changing much more than just replacing cops with something better. But building off that:

I'm envisioning a wide array of ways for people to help out. Things like branches of this community based support based around social services, de-escalation, information and resource support. Much more of an emphasis on providing what is necessary than a boot to the throat. Someone calls in, saying something was stolen. Instead of sending an armed cop to basically play clerk and then do nothing, we have someone go out that gets a detailed description and starts networking with other people. If the item stolen is likely to be fenced or sold for quick cash, instead of simply putting the paper on the pile of reports, they go out to pawn shops and other things to alert them about a potential stolen item.

Someone calls and says someone is suffering a public breakdown and may be in danger of self harming or they're in need of assistance. Instead of sending jack booted thugs to shoot them when the person acts erratically, a duo is sent to try and offer aid and ensure that they're not going to hurt either themselves or someone else. They don't carry guns, they may have tools to try and help subdue people, but turns out when someone's having a melt down, beating the poo poo out of them doesn't help.

In the rare cases that there is actual violence being threatened, highly trained and skilled members would, meeting the violence level expected, bring to bear enough force to hopefully incapacitate. These members would be required to undergo literal years of training before being given this power, and they are only called in when an actual threat is believed to be present. Anyone who calls in claiming danger that turns out to be grossly exaggerated to try and provoke a bigger response would be penalized in some way.

All of these roles would of course be subject to review by members of the community that they are operating around, and if any member is found to be detrimental, they are held accountable and can be recalled at any time.

This is all great.

quote:

we're going the full whole hog anarchical fantasy: This job would be one of many rotating options people would be able to do, depending on capabilities and personal strengths, and if anyone is proven to be an ill fit, either during training or in action made, they're rotated out into some other role, or job.

Pass.

# ? Jun 13, 2020 23:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > F The Police, and then what? A police/justice abolition thread

«‹›47 »