Do we even need police?

[Cordel One]

That's because it includes people with pocketknives in their cars or licenced carriers presenting no threat. For a better perspective, let's look at the total number of people of all races killed by police on an annual basis. In 2020, there were 432 whites killed as opposed to 226 black people. That gives us slightly less than 2 whites killed for every black person, even though the black population is less than 1/4 of the white population.

Now, let's say you're a white supremacist who's about to blame black people instead of cops for this. You'd be wrong, given that cops enforce inequality and inequality causes crime. This means that cops are not only disproportionately more brutal toward minorities, they're also enforcers of the racially prejudiced status quo. Cops are also more likely to stop and arrest minorities than a white person (further throwing off that statistic white supremcists love to use), even if a white person commits the exact same crime.

You didn't really see them firing rubber bullets into that crowd of rightist terrorists at the capital, but remember those protests last summer?

You're drawing a line between cops and black people where no such line exists. Black people can be cops and it seems like they love killing black people. If racism was the motivator for police shootings the ratio of black to white officers who shoot black suspects is almost exactly backwards. If racism is a significant motivator in police shootings it has to be racism against white people, if black people disproportionately interact with the police, disproportionately commit crime, and disproportionately live in areas where crimes occur but did not disproportionately die it imply they who they kill is dictated by race and nothing else. When you look at people who kill people, people who kill cops, people killed by cops, and cops who kill black people black people are overrepresented in every category. Anyone who looks at that and says "black people love killing" is an idiot but anyone who says "those can't possibly have a similar ultimate cause" is just a different flavor of idiot.

Policing is disproportionately white, and filled with white supremacists. The existence of black cops doesn't change this. And again, the "black people commit more crime" thing is rendered meaningless by the fact that cops are more likely to arrest a black person than a white person who commits crime, that inequality causes crime, and that the justice system treats them more harshly.

[Nilokeras]

It's a mental event horizon for me because I'm a native English speaker, so I understand what the words "abolish" and "police" mean. A quick dictionary look up gives me:

I've already explained to you what abolition means here, by example and through analogy to slavery. If there's something you genuinely don't understand in that line of argument let me know, otherwise I'm not going to entertain your appeal to authority.

If you mean "reform the police", say that. If you mean "restructure the police", say that. If you mean "retrain the police", say that. If you mean "hire more social workers", say that.

At the end of the day, either we have lawlessness, or some group deals with burglaries. Some group deals with muggings. Some group deals with murder. That group or groups are the police. And if they exist, they haven't been abolished.

We mean abolish the police, in the same way we abolished slavery. As I have explained several times. That you're now pointing to wage labourer farmers and still calling them slaves is a category error on your part, not mine.

"Help! Officer, that man stole my purse!"

"Sorry lady, I just enforce traffic laws."

Windmill indeed.

I mean you clearly are building one here - your imaginary lady flagged down the wrong person.

[Cordel One]

Mental health professionals don't murder their patients, though.

Wait, if we put people in new scenarios they won't end up doing things they didn't do in past scenarios? Babies rarely commit murders, baby cops. Problem solved. Babies also rarely fly planes or commit medical malpractice, this needs to be further investigated.

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

[Sanghyeok]

They are dealing with organized crime and terrorism though, which is the point.



Ah, another imaginary windmill.

"Help! Officer, that man stole my purse!"

"Sorry lady, I just enforce traffic laws."

Windmill indeed.

Right now, she would need to find an officer and file a report, what difference would it make for her post police abolition to find a non-traffic officer and file one to them? Not to mention she would need to pray that police (who solve only 10% of larceny cases) would even be able to help find the culprit in the first place.

[Labbos]

It's a mental event horizon for me because I'm a native English speaker, so I understand what the words "abolish" and "police" mean. A quick dictionary look up gives me:

I've already explained to you what abolition means here, by example and through analogy to slavery. If there's something you genuinely don't understand in that line of argument let me know, otherwise I'm not going to entertain your appeal to authority.

I've made no appeal to authority, unless you count looking up the meaning of words in a dictionary as an appeal to authority. And you explicitly replied to my post asking why people like me didn't understand "abolish the police" in the way that you do. I've tried to explain it as well as I can. What part of what I wrote didn't you understand?

And I really don't understand your argument. The abolition of slavery meant having no more slaves. Freeing the slaves and enslaving some other people in their place wouldn't have abolished slavery.

Similarly, abolishing the police means having no more police. Firing all current police and having other people do their policing tasks isn't abolishing the police. It's moving the job to other people who become the police.

So if you mean one thing, but use words that mean something else, why are you surprised when people have trouble understanding you? And are you sure that all of the people calling for the abolition of police don't really mean abolishing the police as I understand it? Because there's a danger that they'll show support for the idea from people like you, then move to actual abolition.

[Nilokeras]

And I really don't understand your argument. The abolition of slavery meant having no more slaves. Freeing the slaves and enslaving some other people in their place wouldn't have abolished slavery.

And again, you're calling people slaves just because they also pick cotton. People taking on some of the functions of police officers - like writing traffic tickets - doesn't make them police officers, it makes them whatever they were before abolition with a few extra tasks.

So if you mean one thing, but use words that mean something else, why are you surprised when people have trouble understanding you? And are you sure that all of the people calling for the abolition of police don't really mean abolishing the police as I understand it?

Yes, because the destruction of any mechanism of maintaining public safety is a windmill put up by people in this thread and elsewhere because it's easier to make cracks about Mad Max than it is to sit down and actually wrap their head around the eminently reasonable proposition of abolition.

[Labbos]

And I really don't understand your argument. The abolition of slavery meant having no more slaves. Freeing the slaves and enslaving some other people in their place wouldn't have abolished slavery.

And again, you're calling people slaves just because they also pick cotton. People taking on some of the functions of police officers - like writing traffic tickets - doesn't make them police officers, it makes them whatever they were before abolition with a few extra tasks.

No, you've misunderstood my point. I'm not calling all people who pick cotton slaves. A slave is someone who is someone else's legal property and forced to obey them. So if a country had slaves, then freed those slaves, but enslaved a bunch of other previously free people and sold them at market to new owners: would you count that as abolishing slavery? What if the state called the new slaves "totally free people who definitely aren't slaves"? I don't see that it matters what work they're doing in this scenario, or what they're called, because what matters to me is whether there are people owned by other people. Changing who is enslaved doesn't abolish slavery; only having no more slaves does that.

Similarly, someone whose duties include enforcing the law, including by the use of force if necessary, is a member of the police. Traffic wardens aren't if they're just writing tickets. But who is going to arrest the muggers after abolition, even if they resist arrest? Those people are going to be police, even if they're called something else. And if they exist, then the police haven't been abolished.

So if you mean one thing, but use words that mean something else, why are you surprised when people have trouble understanding you? And are you sure that all of the people calling for the abolition of police don't really mean abolishing the police as I understand it?

Yes, because the destruction of any mechanism of maintaining public safety is a windmill put up by people in this thread and elsewhere because it's easier to make cracks about Mad Max than it is to sit down and actually wrap their head around the eminently reasonable proposition of abolition.

That's my point. Abolition means exactly that. I get it; you don't mean to do away with having people who uphold the law. But that means that you don't want to abolish the police.

[The Two Jerseys]

"Help! Officer, that man stole my purse!"

"Sorry lady, I just enforce traffic laws."

Windmill indeed.

Right now, she would need to find an officer and file a report, what difference would it make for her post police abolition to find a non-traffic officer and file one to them? Not to mention she would need to pray that police (who solve only 10% of larceny cases) would even be able to help find the culprit in the first place.

Let's replace the purse snatching with physical assault. Is a traffic cop supposed to just sit there and watch someone beat someone else to a pulp because it's not his job to police that?

[Nilokeras]

Similarly, someone whose duties include enforcing the law, including by the use of force if necessary, is a member of the police. Traffic wardens aren't if they're just writing tickets.

So you agree then that we're not just creating ten different new flavours of police.

But who is going to arrest the muggers after abolition, even if they resist arrest? Those people are going to be police, even if they're called something else. And if they exist, then the police haven't been abolished.

Bailiffs, for example. They are not police officers but have limited power to serve court documents like summonses on behalf of the courts but have no power unto themselves to investigate or initiate charges on their own. Which again is the vital point here - we're separating out all the parts that make the police the police. If an investigator in the prosecutorial service decides that charges are necessary they can then put out a warrant for the bailiffs to execute. Critically they are the only part of the reporting chain that is *not* civilian in this schema, and are entirely subordinate to civilian services.

[Neutraligon]

I agree with the beer but not using seatbelts or motorcycle helmets is an incredibly moronic thing to do. There's just no excuse for it.

It is a victimless crime just like prostitution (with consenting adults) and gambling and using marijuana. Propaganda should be used to encourage and educate people to use helmets and seatbelts BUT for those past puberty (perhaps age 15 or 16 could be a set age defined as a young adult) it should be an option. Eating candy and smoking tobacco is also bad for our health and kills people but I don't think it should be banned.

I was actually referring to bicycle helmet laws in some cities like Seattle and Spokane, Washington. Few people in Amsterdam wear bicycle helmets and I think helmet laws discourage people from cycling (it makes people see riding a bicycle as an extreme sport, like skateboarding or snowboarding, instead of simple transportation).

These silly laws make the police busier while real criminals are shooting and robbing folks.

If in a car, not wearing a seatbelt is not victimless crime, since the individual becomes a projectile that can seriously harm or kill other people, especially if they end up ejected from the car and into the street.

[Labbos]

Similarly, someone whose duties include enforcing the law, including by the use of force if necessary, is a member of the police. Traffic wardens aren't if they're just writing tickets.

So you agree then that we're not just creating ten different new flavours of police.

It depends. You can take some tasks that police do and give them to other people without making them police. But some of the tasks, arresting people or dealing with people who are a current danger to the public for example, are inherently part of policing. If it's someone's job to do those things, they are police.

But who is going to arrest the muggers after abolition, even if they resist arrest? Those people are going to be police, even if they're called something else. And if they exist, then the police haven't been abolished.

Bailiffs, for example. They are not police officers but have limited power to serve court documents like summonses on behalf of the courts but have no power unto themselves to investigate or initiate charges on their own. Which again is the vital point here - we're separating out all the parts that make the police the police. If an investigator in the prosecutorial service decides that charges are necessary they can then put out a warrant for the bailiffs to execute. Critically they are the only part of the reporting chain that is *not* civilian in this schema, and are entirely subordinate to civilian services.

OK, so someone works out who committed the crime. If they see the mugger do they let him run away because it's not their job to arrest him? And the bailiff tracks him down and serves him some papers? Fine, neither of them sounds like they're police. But when the day of the trial rolls around, and the mugger doesn't show up, what happens now? Does the bailiff serve him another court document? And if he ignores that too?

I guess what I'm getting at, is who forces somebody who refuses to cooperate to turn up in court against their will? Because that person sounds like they're the police.

[Des-Bal]

Policing is disproportionately white, and filled with white supremacists. The existence of black cops doesn't change this. And again, the "black people commit more crime" thing is rendered meaningless by the fact that cops are more likely to arrest a black person than a white person who commits crime, that inequality causes crime, and that the justice system treats them more harshly.

See the fact polciing is disproportionately white proves the point, if police who shoot black people are mostly black the fact that they're a smaller than expected percentage of the police force means it's even less likely that race is a significant motivator.

No actually it is not rendered meaningless, I mean if you could show that no factor except disparate treatment by the police effects crime it would then be rendered meaningless. It would also be amazing because it would mean black people are immune to the effects of poverty mental illness and other factors which tend to influence criminality.

[Des-Bal]

Wait, if we put people in new scenarios they won't end up doing things they didn't do in past scenarios? Babies rarely commit murders, baby cops. Problem solved. Babies also rarely fly planes or commit medical malpractice, this needs to be further investigated.

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

Wait a minute, 40% of babies are domestic abusers and they're filled with white supremacists!? Alert the media!

[The Two Jerseys]

So you agree then that we're not just creating ten different new flavours of police.

It depends. You can take some tasks that police do and give them to other people without making them police. But some of the tasks, arresting people or dealing with people who are a current danger to the public for example, are inherently part of policing. If it's someone's job to do those things, they are police.

Bailiffs, for example. They are not police officers but have limited power to serve court documents like summonses on behalf of the courts but have no power unto themselves to investigate or initiate charges on their own. Which again is the vital point here - we're separating out all the parts that make the police the police. If an investigator in the prosecutorial service decides that charges are necessary they can then put out a warrant for the bailiffs to execute. Critically they are the only part of the reporting chain that is *not* civilian in this schema, and are entirely subordinate to civilian services.

OK, so someone works out who committed the crime. If they see the mugger do they let him run away because it's not their job to arrest him? And the bailiff tracks him down and serves him some papers? Fine, neither of them sounds like they're police. But when the day of the trial rolls around, and the mugger doesn't show up, what happens now? Does the bailiff serve him another court document? And if he ignores that too?

I guess what I'm getting at, is who forces somebody who refuses to cooperate to turn up in court against their will? Because that person sounds like they're the police.

In most jurisdictions, bailiffs are sworn law enforcement officers. In other words, the police.

Because it's kind of a requirement when you're exercising police powers.

[The Two Jerseys]

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

Wait a minute, 40% of babies are domestic abusers and they're filled with white supremacists!? Alert the media!

Don't forget those white supremacist, domestic abusive therapy dogs!

[Sanghyeok]

Wait a minute, 40% of babies are domestic abusers and they're filled with white supremacists!? Alert the media!

Don't forget those white supremacist, domestic abusive therapy dogs!

Very funny.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

Wait a minute, 40% of babies are domestic abusers and they're filled with white supremacists!? Alert the media!

Sound the sirens! Call the President!

Then call again next week after the new one gets inaugurated.

GET ZE FLAMMENWERFER!!!!!

[Page]

Wait, if we put people in new scenarios they won't end up doing things they didn't do in past scenarios? Babies rarely commit murders, baby cops. Problem solved. Babies also rarely fly planes or commit medical malpractice, this needs to be further investigated.

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

40% of cops surveyed admitted to being abusers so the actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Over 40% of mental health professionals also aren't domestic abusers, and that system isn't filled with white supremacists.

40% of cops surveyed admitted to being abusers so the actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher.

Out of curiosoty, what is this survey?
Who is the survey from?
How were participants chosen?
How many cops were there?
Where were they from (presumably the US), city-and state-wise? Was the survey restricted to one area or all over?
What potential biases were introduced in the survey?
What was the p-value?
I'm not saying this stat isn't legit, but I need to be sure.

[The Lone Alliance]

My position isn't that there will be mad max, my position is that as long as there are criminals and as long as there are people who have to round up criminals, things will continue to happen.

And there is no way in hell will there ever be a system where no one has a job of rounding up criminals.

Whoever inevitably gets the job of rounding up criminals no matter what you call them will inevitably come to hate and\or fear the criminals.
And that's when the violence happens.

[Cordel One]

Policing is disproportionately white, and filled with white supremacists. The existence of black cops doesn't change this. And again, the "black people commit more crime" thing is rendered meaningless by the fact that cops are more likely to arrest a black person than a white person who commits crime, that inequality causes crime, and that the justice system treats them more harshly.

See the fact polciing is disproportionately white proves the point, if police who shoot black people are mostly black the fact that they're a smaller than expected percentage of the police force means it's even less likely that race is a significant motivator.

It doesn't mean that at all, it's yet another sign that the American police force is a white supremacist institution.

No actually it is not rendered meaningless, I mean if you could show that no factor except disparate treatment by the police effects crime it would then be rendered meaningless. It would also be amazing because it would mean black people are immune to the effects of poverty mental illness and other factors which tend to influence criminality.

You're deliberately attempting to change the meaning of what I said. Cops perpetuate racial hierarchies.

[Velosia]

If you think that completely dismantling national police services is an entirely rational position to have then, I'm sorry, but you really haven't thought it through. I don't know anything about your personal experiences with the police, but this is utterly absurd and I refuse to believe you're being serious. This is like saying 'do we REALLY need hospitals?'

Sending people to state-funded re-education camps to teach them what everyone and their dog already knew and legalising burglary 'non-violent' crimes will not make crime magically disappear (unless you legalise all crime). Even if your proposed initiatives did reduce crime dramatically, there will always be rotten elements in every society that will still seek to do harm to other people. You wouldn't even support keeping around a token police force?

You cannot see 'the police' as some monolithic organisation that functions identically across the developed world. Policing in the United States is not the same as policing in Denmark or New Zealand. I don't know where you're from, but policing here in the United Kingdom generally has an entirely different ethos to that of the United States. Where the Yanks simply get a crash course on how to shoot strait, British police officers essentially have to go through school again before they're put on the beat. Learning how to engage with the general public and de-escalate situations without resorting to violence comes above all else in British police training. The argument that 'all police are corrupt, trigger-happy rapists' doesn't really stick outside of the United States (where I'm sure such a statement still wouldn't be true).

I would generally agree that more needs to be done as far as rehabilitation goes. I believe that (most) criminals should be equipped with the tools necessary to return to society as productive members, not simply thrown behind bars and left to rot. But we should also make sure that we have an effective police service that has the resources it needs to effectively stop crime and that officers on the beat have the training/skills necessary to engage productively with local communities and de-escalate situations without having to resort to (excessive) force.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

See the fact polciing is disproportionately white proves the point, if police who shoot black people are mostly black the fact that they're a smaller than expected percentage of the police force means it's even less likely that race is a significant motivator.

It doesn't mean that at all, it's yet another sign that the American police force is a white supremacist institution.

No actually it is not rendered meaningless, I mean if you could show that no factor except disparate treatment by the police effects crime it would then be rendered meaningless. It would also be amazing because it would mean black people are immune to the effects of poverty mental illness and other factors which tend to influence criminality.

You're deliberately attempting to change the meaning of what I said. Cops perpetuate racial hierarchies.

[Cordel One]

40% of cops surveyed admitted to being abusers so the actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher.

Out of curiosoty, what is this survey?
Who is the survey from?
How were participants chosen?
How many cops were there?
Where were they from (presumably the US), city-and state-wise? Was the survey restricted to one area or all over?
What potential biases were introduced in the survey?
What was the p-value?
I'm not saying this stat isn't legit, but I need to be sure.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ds/380329/

[Cordel One]

If you think that completely dismantling national police services is an entirely rational position to have then, I'm sorry, but you really haven't thought it through. I don't know anything about your personal experiences with the police, but this is utterly absurd and I refuse to believe you're being serious. This is like saying 'do we REALLY need hospitals?'

Sending people to state-funded re-education camps to teach them what everyone and their dog already knew and legalising burglary will not make crime magically disappear. Even if your proposed initiatives did reduce crime dramatically, there will always be rotten elements in every society that will still seek to do harm to other people. You wouldn't even support keeping around a token police force?

You cannot see 'the police' as some monolithic organisation that functions identically across the developed world. Policing in the United States is not the same as policing in Denmark or New Zealand. I don't know where you're from, but policing here in the United Kingdom generally has an entirely different ethos to that of the United States. Where the Yanks simply get a crash course on how to shoot strait, British police officers essentially have to go through school again before they're put on the beat. Learning how to engage with the general public and de-escalate situations without resorting to violence comes above all else in British police training. The argument that 'all police are corrupt, trigger-happy rapists' doesn't really stick outside of the United States (where I'm sure such a statement still wouldn't be true).

I would generally agree that more needs to be done as far as rehabilitation goes. I believe that (most) criminals should be equipped with the tools necessary to return to society as productive members, not simply thrown behind bars and left to rot. But we should also make sure that we have an effective police service that has the resources it needs to effectively stop crime and that officers on the beat have the training/skills necessary to engage productively with local communities and de-escalate situations without having to resort to (excessive) force.

You're addressing a strawman, not the true argument that we're making. Kowani and Sanghyeok both made great posts detailing the problems with cops and what to do instead.

First, to answer the question of "do we need police", we have to ask a different question: What do police do?
And the answer to that seems simple: "They enforce the law" "they catch criminals" "they uphold the state"
All of these are valid answers. So let us synthesize them: They uphold the state by enforcing the law by catching criminals. A bit wordy, perhaps, but it'll do.
The reservation most people have, when the question "should we have police" is that the police prevent crime, catch criminals, and generally work to prevent anarchy (the not fun kind). Often, some musing about "human nature" (a topic we shall return to later) accompanies it, the idea that without the police, we would fall into something very similar to Hobbes' state of nature, where the strong prey on the weak.
But what if I told you that was already our situation-and the police were partly responsible?

Take a guess, your best, at what percentage of crime the police solve. 40? 50? 60?
Would you accept a 60% failure rate? No? Good.
Because the police do even worse. The true clearance rate (crimes where a formal charge is laid) has been 10%. For the past 30 years. And the arrest rate, exactly the same. 10%. And it gets worse. When you take convictions into account, 41% of murderers got away scot-free, as did 88% of rapists, 96% of robbers, 93% of assailants, and 97% of burglars. Larceny was particularly bad, with the conviction rate not even reaching a full percent.
It's not for lack of effort, either. After all, the police only spend 4% of their time on violent crime. Most of their time is spent on either non-criminal calls or traffic work.
And despite these objectively terrible numbers, the amount of money America spends on policing continues to balloon, expanding year after year without stopping.

We spend this money on ever more militarized police forces, mostly to focus on average crimes. SWAT, for example, does not spend most of its time dealing with active violent situations, like hostage crises or snipers. Instead,62% of SWAT deployments are for drug searches, and 79% of all SWAT deployments are on the basis of a search warrant.
Imagine, if you will, being woken up at 6:00 a.m by a raid on your neighbor's home. Black-clad troopers, in military vehicles, deploying a distraction device, breaking the door down with a battering ram, all to find a small amount of marijuana.
Would you trust them to adequately respond to your concerns?
No?
You're not alone. Militarizing the police doesn't make them any better at their jobs-but it does make people trust them less. And-in a theme we'll return to, it disproportionately hurts minorities, even when you account for crime rates.
Truly, pillars of society.

And they make this worse.
Most of us, I assume, have heard of "civil asset forfeiture", where the police seize possessions without a trial, on the mere suspicion that you used it to commit a crime. Over the past 20 years, that gave the federal government a nice little boost of 40 Billion-and the state and local levels are even larger. In some years, they actually took more than burglars. And why wouldn't they? It's a powerful incentive, practically untouchable.
But does it make us safer? No. Not at all. In fact, just the opposite. The more the police focused on seizing property and collecting fines, the worse they got at actually solving crime.
Oh, and don't expect to get your stuff back, even if you're innocent, by the way. You don't just have to prove your innocence-you have to prove the officers' belief that it was being used in a crime to have been unreasonable.
Good luck with that.

Am I being too harsh on the police?
I don't think so. They protect themselves pretty well. After all, according to the police themselves, 62% of them don't always report serious criminal abuses by other cops, and 52% of them thought it was normal for police to outright ignore misconduct by their colleagues.
How can we expect them to police the streets when they can't even police themselves?
And even the rare case of an officer getting fired for abuses or criminal behaviour doesn't stop them-they'll just get a job at another department.

Much has been made of the idea that the police are racist, systemically so.
There are many examples we could use, such as the fact that blacks and latinos were more likely stopped and frisked, despite the fact that whites were more likely to have contraband, that minorities are less likely to receive a discount on their speeding ticket, or that the disparity in traffic stops entirely disappears at night (which, for the inevitable apologists, destroys both class and criminality arguments), etc.

But what if it went both ways? What if being a minority actually made it less likely your murder would be solved, or that the police would treat you with less respect when they interacted with you?
Wouldn't you find this whole system unfair, and deeply rotten?
I do.


I don't pretend to have a solution to the question of "so what do we replace the police with?"
At least, not yet.
My only goal here is to demonstrate that as it exists, the institution of policing is deeply nonfunctional, and needs to be replaced with something else.

Okay, that makes sense. That's all I got for now; maybe I will TG you later.

Also, some thoughts on what's going on in the thread: I think that many people are responding to Sanghyeok, Ifreann, Cordel One, and similarly-aligned nations with "well, of course there's going to be crime! of course there is going to be social stratification!"

These are pretty common or even "conventional" sentiments that I think the above-listed nations have heard and chose to reject, though. I think they might know something that the more traditionally-minded nations don't.

Granted, I'm aware that my hunch would NOT work when it comes to other subjects. For instance, climate deniers don't know something that climate scientists don't, and if they do, it's probably not worth much. Flat-earthers don't know something that astronomers/astrophysicists don't, and if they do, it's probably not worth much...

However, when it comes to police, I feel that the United States (at least) is in desperate need of a solution to this mess, so I think some of the more "radical" proposals should be heard (as long as they are made in good faith!). The "no, of course that can't work" sentiment seem to have gotten in the way of the discussion/learning about each side. Maybe more discussion should be done over TGs so that people don't either a) think they haven't been properly heard or b) think their opponents' takes are absolute bull...

Thus far, most of my arguments have been on why I see police as faulty due to their identity as a servant of the state, and not as much regarding what occurs to ensure the reduction of crime in our post-police setting. One reason is I feel some other posters here, particularly Ifreann and Cordel, are far better at pushing their claims there. Your post regarding many people's worries on certain problems- in particular, "what do we do with crime and social stratification?" after police cease to exist- does however remind me to write about my own opinion on how to prevent those issue- ie, the progression of events before police as they exist now join feudalism and slavery in their rightful place: history books - as well as clear up misconceptions.

Some people seem to believe I wish to see police done away with instantaneously, having police at sunset and the entire institution abandoned by sunrise, with the prisons cleared and officers having found employment elsewhere. That is not so. As I've mentioned since my OP, I see the eventual abolition of police as a process lasting many years as opposed to an instantaneous change. There will be some periods when this process speeds up: initial reforms that shift away policing budgets, and the very end when police are abolished as a system. There will be some periods when this process slows down: when welfare is completing its work through education and prevention programmes to lower and deter crime, when minor offenses become legalised, when prisoners are rehabilitated so they are ready to make a return to society and prisons are no longer needed. But overall, there is a step-by-step movement towards our final goal. Much like the dessert chef understands we cannot make tiramisu before acquiring ladyfingers; we police abolishment advocates understand police cannot be abolished before prisoners are released, that prisoners cannot be released before they are rehabilitated, etc.

Now, what happens to "crime" throughout this process? Many argue that police prevent crime. Some note that crime may exist following our abolishing of police. Those are natural and entirely understandable concerns. Many people argue that without police we will have crime, but I urge them to ask themselves: why does crime still exist at such high rates even after police have existed for so long? Indeed, the claim that "police help prevent crime" or "police solve crime" has been debunked time and again, particularly by Kowani's excellent post, which I encourage everyone to read if they haven't yet. As for the second claim, that crime may still exist in our new society, we acknowledge such an argument. However, we believe it will be at low enough rates so that an alternative to policing is entirely feasible. I offer some ideas of how to reach that goal below:

As mentioned, our idea is gradually decreasing crime to extremely low levels throughout with continued improvement. Evidence tends to suggest that crime tends to decrease with increased education, which is one of our proposals- to shift budgets away from police and towards education. Similarly, our proposed increase in welfarehas been effective thus far in preventing all sorts of criminal offenses, and an increase would again be greatly effective by improving people's lives and genuinely decreasing incentives for crime (not to mention morally correct). Combined with mental health treatment to assist those at
elevated risk of violent activity especially since 40% of people in certain prisons are with psychiatric issues, lesser rules on drugs, helping nonviolent offenders, and other policies, the overall crime rate should be lowered even further. In time, police may be replaced entirely with unarmed intervention teams, further deterring crime with increased emphasis on community responsibility, and lower level volunteer forces.

Abolishing police will not be easy, but I do believe that with time it can be accomplished and bring us into a new and better society freed from policing by servants of capital and the state.

(Thanks to Cordel for offering me some grammatical and style edits)