Do we even need police?

[Adamede]

No, but you can build power connections with it.

So we make it so you don't get have power by having connections. Get some democracy going on here, do an anarchism.

I don’t think you quite understand how humans work. Every social group is stratified to some degree, and there’s always someone with more power than others, however little it is or whatever form.

And the famous and powerful seem to have quite a taste for the those rings.

I mean I hate to break it too you but rape but was a thing long before money was ever developed.

But human trafficking organisations weren't, and that was what your brought up. Let's not go shifting goalposts.

I’ll give you that, instead they just raided and killed their neighbors for slaves. And I’m just making examples of why you can’t just replace cops with preventive measures.

The basis of your arguments seem to be hinged on that we’re on the cusp of developing a perfect utopian society where nobody wants for anything and as such all crime will go away.

I think we could prevent a lot of crime in society if we decided to address criminogenic conditions instead of trying to just punish criminals. I don't think that society would necessarily be perfect or totally crime free. Just better.

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.
I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

[The Two Jerseys]

Or when you have white collar criminals stealing money out of pure greed.

Police doesn't go after white collar crime anyways.

Dear diary, today I learned that the FBI doesn't exist...

[Adamede]

Or when you have white collar criminals stealing money out of pure greed.

Police doesn't go after white collar crime anyways.

And firefighters don’t fight all fires. Guess we might as well get rid of all fire departments as well.

[Page]

Police doesn't go after white collar crime anyways.

And firefighters don’t fight all fires. Guess we might as well get rid of all fire departments as well.

If we had fire departments who did a controlled burn of anything that might remotely be a fire hazard, going into people's houses and seeing that their toaster is close to their curtains and saying "we are going to burn down your house now as a precaution so that we won't have to put our lives at risk if your house catches fire accidentally", that would be analogous to the trigger happy cops we have to contend with today.

[SD_Film Artists]

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.
I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

[Adamede]

And firefighters don’t fight all fires. Guess we might as well get rid of all fire departments as well.

If we had fire departments who did a controlled burn of anything that might remotely be a fire hazard, going into people's houses and seeing that their toaster is close to their curtains and saying "we are going to burn down your house now as a precaution so that we won't have to put our lives at risk if your house catches fire accidentally", that would be analogous to the trigger happy cops we have to contend with today.

And if we did it wouldn’t change the fact that society needs fire fighters. It just means it needs better ones. Reform seems to be a concept you’re incapable of understanding.

[Ifreann]

But it does a lot to deal with thieves. And a similar principle would probably work for those crimes as well. Obviously we can't give serial killers people to kill, but we can give them therapy before they ever become serial killers. We can destigmatise mental health problems so that people are willing to go to a therapist before they kill someone. Or if people are selling children into sex slavery, what do they want that money for? Can't we just give them whatever it is they want? Or make it so the thing they want can't just be bought for cash? Change the conditions in society that cause people to do such horrible things to make money instead of hoping that the police will be able to find every person doing a horrible thing to make money.

It sounds like it'll be incentivising crime.

Quite the opposite. We address the incentives to commit crime before the crime happens. Then people don't do crimes, because the thing they wanted from the crimes, they already have.

What ever happened to just not doing something because it's wrong? I could profit immensely from robbing a bank, but I don't because it's wrong. And for the people who don't care about it being wrong, there's the police. The thieves of the hatton garden heist were (mostly) later caught by the police's 'flying squad'.

You can't prevent bank robberies by saying that robbing banks is wrong and if you do it we'll have the police beat you up. And I know that's true because of the example you provide, where people robbed a bank despite knowing that police would come after them.

---

So we make it so you don't get have power by having connections. Get some democracy going on here, do an anarchism.

I don’t think you quite understand how humans work. Every social group is stratified to some degree, and there’s always someone with more power than others, however little it is or whatever form.

So lets stop organising social groups like that.

But human trafficking organisations weren't, and that was what your brought up. Let's not go shifting goalposts.

I’ll give you that, instead they just raided and killed their neighbors for slaves. And I’m just making examples of why you can’t just replace cops with preventive measures.

No, you aren't. You're just giving examples of crimes, you're not doing anything to argue that these crimes cannot be prevented and our only recourse is to use state violence to assail these organisations.

I think we could prevent a lot of crime in society if we decided to address criminogenic conditions instead of trying to just punish criminals. I don't think that society would necessarily be perfect or totally crime free. Just better.

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.

I might be ignoring some of your posts, but I don't think I've misrepresented anything you've said. When I refer to "trying to just punish criminals", I'm not saying that you believe that to be the best possible approach, I'm describing how society currently functions.

I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

And I don't see why the existence of crime necessitates police authority. The police are, after all, a relatively modern invention. We did not always have them in the past, so it follows that we do not always need them in the future. And I have no idea what you mean by "going digital". We're communicating by computer right now.

[Page]

If we had fire departments who did a controlled burn of anything that might remotely be a fire hazard, going into people's houses and seeing that their toaster is close to their curtains and saying "we are going to burn down your house now as a precaution so that we won't have to put our lives at risk if your house catches fire accidentally", that would be analogous to the trigger happy cops we have to contend with today.

And if we did it woodsy change the fact that society needs fire fighters. It just means it needs better ones. Reform seems to be a concept you’re incapable of understanding.

We need more than reform. Law enforcement as a concept must be eschewed and replaced with an institution that prioritizes the community's well-being above all else.

The fetishization of law and order is dangerous. Right now in the middle of a deadly pandemic we have jails packed with people in close quarters, many of whom are either entirely innocent, or their crime was victimless, or their crime was petty, and they are dying. Can't we just issue a shoplifter a notice to appear in court? No, they might flee the state. Can't we just let some convicts be released early? No, that would mean they aren't adequately punished for what they did, as if someone getting away with a crime or not being punished enough is worse than that person dying of covid and infecting everyone in their vicinity.

Or you're driving on the highway and a cop on the same road and runs the license plate of a nearby driver and finds out they have an outstanding warrant for forgery, and when the cop puts on the siren the suspect floors it and flees. The cops floor it and go after them, leading them on a chase that puts every other driver at great risk of death. Rather than let the suspect flee and just put out a notice so they can be looked for later when they are no longer on the highway, they choose to pursue. Your life as a bystander is worth less than law and order, it's better to risk you dying in a crash than to risk the forger getting away.

This is a serious problem and it can't be fixed with a few reforms.

[Ifreann]

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.
I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

Probably less than you're paying the cops who pinkie-promise not to abuse their power to violate people's rights.

[Norstal]

And I don't see why the existence of crime necessitates police authority. The police are, after all, a relatively modern invention. We did not always have them in the past, so it follows that we do not always need them in the future. And I have no idea what you mean by "going digital". We're communicating by computer right now.

I'm curious. How are you going to secure the internet without any state or police entities?

[Page]

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.
I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

You're right, the thieves had billions of dollars and our government gave them even more and they're still not happy.

[Sanghyeok]

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.
I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

You seem to be misunderstanding what preventing crime is.

[Sanghyeok]

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

You're right, the thieves had billions of dollars and our government gave them even more and they're still not happy.

I'd like to see police go after wealthy tax evaders, labour law violators, illegal emissions, and companies committing wage theft but I suppose the state will never go after its own interests.

[Ifreann]

And I don't see why the existence of crime necessitates police authority. The police are, after all, a relatively modern invention. We did not always have them in the past, so it follows that we do not always need them in the future. And I have no idea what you mean by "going digital". We're communicating by computer right now.

I'm curious. How are you going to secure the internet without any state or police entities?

What is it you think the police do to secure the internet?

[Norstal]

I'm curious. How are you going to secure the internet without any state or police entities?

What is it you think the police do to secure the internet?

Arrest pedophiles and sets up multimillion honeypot traps to catch more of them to uncover child abuse rings. Shut down ISIS recruitment sites. etc. To be frank, I don't know the details. I just know that I can't seem to do anything I want without cops showing up in my door.

I'm assuming I live in your world now, so we don't have any of those thing. The world sang high praises on the extremely low number of psychopaths and pedophiles that remain thanks to your leadership. Adamede, SD_Film Artists, and others who supported the police have been banished to Siberia for their unworkable ideas. Now, how do you catch the few number of pedophiles that remains? You did said there will be a low number of these people, that they wouldn't completely disappeared.

[Page]

What is it you think the police do to secure the internet?

Arrest pedophiles and sets up multimillion honeypot traps to catch more of them to uncover child abuse rings. Shut down ISIS recruitment sites. etc. To be frank, I don't know the details. I just know that I can't seem to do anything I want without cops showing up in my door.

I'm assuming I live in your world now, so we don't have any of those thing. The world sang high praises on the extremely low number of psychopaths and pedophiles that remain thanks to your leadership. Adamede, SD_Film Artists, and others who supported the police have been banished to Siberia for their unworkable ideas. Now, how do you catch the few number of pedophiles that remains? You did said there will be a low number of these people, that they wouldn't completely disappeared.

You ask in our world, how are we going to catch pedophiles, but can you answer how in this world you are going to stop thousands of innocent people from being gunned down and millions of lives destroyed by the prison industrial complex?

You are basically arguing that if there are no cops, bad things would happen, therefore getting rid of cops is a bad idea, while ignoring all the bad things happening right now.

It's just like how people say communism or anarchism "doesn't work" as if capitalism is working for everyone right now.

[Norstal]

Arrest pedophiles and sets up multimillion honeypot traps to catch more of them to uncover child abuse rings. Shut down ISIS recruitment sites. etc. To be frank, I don't know the details. I just know that I can't seem to do anything I want without cops showing up in my door.

I'm assuming I live in your world now, so we don't have any of those thing. The world sang high praises on the extremely low number of psychopaths and pedophiles that remain thanks to your leadership. Adamede, SD_Film Artists, and others who supported the police have been banished to Siberia for their unworkable ideas. Now, how do you catch the few number of pedophiles that remains? You did said there will be a low number of these people, that they wouldn't completely disappeared.

You ask in our world, how are we going to catch pedophiles, but can you answer how in this world you are going to stop thousands of innocent people from being gunned down and millions of lives destroyed by the prison industrial complex?

You are basically arguing that if there are no cops, bad things would happen, therefore getting rid of cops is a bad idea, while ignoring all the bad things happening right now.

It's just like how people say communism or anarchism "doesn't work" as if capitalism is working for everyone right now.

Where did I even argued that without cops bad things would happen? I don't understand why none of you can answer this simple answer without giving details. That's just bad marketing.

I didn't even say getting rid of cops is a bad idea. Certainly replacing cops with voluntary gendarmes might work in certain communities. But you're not gonna convince anyone without details.

So let's try this again. I live in your world now. Use your imagination. I'm just a simple version your society's equivalent of a commoner. There's a only one pedophile in the world thanks to your political and societal organization. But we still gotta do something about it because he keeps on hitting his neighbor's daughter through the internet and maybe in real life. What do you do?

[Ifreann]

What is it you think the police do to secure the internet?

Arrest pedophiles and sets up multimillion honeypot traps to catch more of them to uncover child abuse rings. Shut down ISIS recruitment sites. etc.

If those prove to be the best way to address the proliferation of child abuse materials on the internet then we can establish organisations dedicated to doing those things. Organisations that are not the police and that don't operate like the police.

To be frank, I don't know the details. I just know that I can't seem to do anything I want without cops showing up in my door.

I'm assuming I live in your world now, so we don't have any of those thing. The world sang high praises on the extremely low number of psychopaths and pedophiles that remain thanks to your leadership. Adamede, SD_Film Artists, and others who supported the police have been banished to Siberia for their unworkable ideas.

Nothing you describe here is "my world".

Now, how do you catch the few number of pedophiles that remains? You did said there will be a low number of these people, that they wouldn't completely disappeared.

I don't recall saying anything about the number of paedophiles that would exist under any circumstances.

[SD_Film Artists]

It sounds like it'll be incentivising crime.

Quite the opposite. We address the incentives to commit crime before the crime happens. Then people don't do crimes, because the thing they wanted from the crimes, they already have.

What if they want more? Do the law-abiding people get more too? How much will we have to pay people before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime?
As for non-monetary answers we can't remove all crime by mental health policies and it may perpetuate negative stereotypes by attaching criminality to mental health and mental health to criminality.

I think changes in community/national culture can lower crime and remove greed, but simply paying people off may only increase greed.

What ever happened to just not doing something because it's wrong? I could profit immensely from robbing a bank, but I don't because it's wrong. And for the people who don't care about it being wrong, there's the police. The thieves of the hatton garden heist were (mostly) later caught by the police's 'flying squad'.

You can't prevent bank robberies by saying that robbing banks is wrong and if you do it we'll have the police beat you up. And I know that's true because of the example you provide, where people robbed a bank despite knowing that police would come after them.

The police have achieved two goals; one being deterrence (bank robberies are rare) and two, bringing the exceptions to the above to justice. Yet despite bank robberies being rare and the police catching the few who did try, the police are still a failure in your book because... They didn't pay the thieves enough to kindly desist from their actions?

Probably less than you're paying the cops who pinkie-promise not to abuse their power to violate people's rights.

Dodging the question with a crass generalisation.

[Adamede]

It sounds like it'll be incentivising crime.

Quite the opposite. We address the incentives to commit crime before the crime happens. Then people don't do crimes, because the thing they wanted from the crimes, they already have.

And to get to that point where crime disappears completely is a fucking pipe dream. As I said your stance depends on an impossible utopia.

---

[/quote]

I don’t think you quite understand how humans work. Every social group is stratified to some degree, and there’s always someone with more power than others, however little it is or whatever form.

So lets stop organising social groups like that. [/quote]
Don’t hold your breath.

I’ll give you that, instead they just raided and killed their neighbors for slaves. And I’m just making examples of why you can’t just replace cops with preventive measures.

No, you aren't. You're just giving examples of crimes, you're not doing anything to argue that these crimes cannot be prevented and our only recourse is to use state violence to assail these organisations.

Then let me make my point clear then.

These activities have always existed so long as humanity has existed. They will continue to exist so long as humans are in there natural state.

And I never said that a policing authority are our only option, which you keep on seeming to skip over whenever I say it, but that they are a necessary part of any option.

So then your circle jerks on this thread you’re either purposely misrepresenting or ignoring my arguments.

I might be ignoring some of your posts, but I don't think I've misrepresented anything you've said.

You very well have.

When I refer to "trying to just punish criminals", I'm not saying that you believe that to be the best possible approach, I'm describing how society currently functions.

And that’s I’m talking about.

I never said you couldn’t lower crime rates, I said that you’ll never get rid of it short of a utopian society that’ll never happen outside of our going digital, and as such society will have need of some form of policing authority.

And I don't see why the existence of crime necessitates police authority. The police are, after all, a relatively modern invention.

Modern police are, but executive authorities have always existed. The most common in shorts seemingly being the lynch mob, or at its most primitive exile or execution by the authority of the tribe.

We did not always have them in the past, so it follows that we do not always need them in the future.

I sincerely question your view of history. Let me make the note that when I’m referring to pol is I’m referring to executive authorities in general, not just our modern Anglo definition of a modern police department.

And I have no idea what you mean by "going digital". We're communicating by computer right now.

I had the singularity in mind, but anything that indies humanity under a single transhuman conscience

---

And if we did it woodsy change the fact that society needs fire fighters. It just means it needs better ones. Reform seems to be a concept you’re incapable of understanding.

We need more than reform. Law enforcement as a concept must be eschewed and replaced with an institution that prioritizes the community's well-being above all else.

I’ve not seen anything you’ve suggested as an alternative. What do you have in mind?

The fetishization of law and order is dangerous.

Do not misrepresent my arguments.

Right now in the middle of a deadly pandemic we have jails packed with people in close quarters, many of whom are either entirely innocent, or their crime was victimless, or their crime was petty, and they are dying.

Again, reforms can be made to deal with that.

Can't we just issue a shoplifter a notice to appear in court? No, they might flee the state. Can't we just let some convicts be released early? No, that would mean they aren't adequately punished for what they did, as if someone getting away with a crime or not being punished enough is worse than that person dying of covid and infecting everyone in their vicinity. Or you're driving on the highway and a cop on the same road and runs the license plate of a nearby driver and finds out they have an outstanding warrant for forgery, and when the cop puts on the siren the suspect floors it and flees. The cops floor it and go after them, leading them on a chase that puts every other driver at great risk of death. Rather than let the suspect flee and just put out a notice so they can be looked for later when they are no longer on the highway, they choose to pursue. Your life as a bystander is worth less than law and order, it's better to risk you dying in a crash than to risk the forger getting away.

None of those are actual arguments for getting rid of police as an inherent part of society, rather it’s an argument for the reform of the current American model of policing, which is not nor ever has been the one and only model of police.

This is a serious problem and it can't be fixed with a few reforms.

No it’s not. Frankly this view point is not only so extremist to be borderline idiotic it’s also extreme America-centric which just makes the entire argument ridiculous and frankly petty.

Over all I’ve got to say that police abolition form society is a a vast over reaction to the problems that the both of you have raised.

[SD_Film Artists]

It was the same in the Landlords thread; amounting to 'give everyone all the free stuff all the time and everyone will be happy'.
More to the point, I wonder how much we'll have to pay-off the thieves before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime.

You seem to be misunderstanding what preventing crime is.

Would you care to enlighten us without repeating what has already been addressed?

[Ifreann]

Quite the opposite. We address the incentives to commit crime before the crime happens. Then people don't do crimes, because the thing they wanted from the crimes, they already have.

What if they want more? Do the law-abiding people get more too?

They are the law-abiding people. That's the point. To solve the problems that lead to the crime before the crime happens.

How much will we have to pay people before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime?

Probably less than you're paying the cops who pinkie-promise not to abuse their power to violate people's rights.

As for non-monetary answers we can't remove all crime by mental health policies and it may perpetuate negative stereotypes by attaching criminality to mental health and mental health to criminality.

We can destigmatise mental health problems

I think changes in community/national culture can lower crime and remove greed, but simply paying people off may only increase greed.

What? If people aren't being hurt in bank robberies, and aren't being hurt by the police, what does it matter if greed is increased? What does that even mean?

You can't prevent bank robberies by saying that robbing banks is wrong and if you do it we'll have the police beat you up. And I know that's true because of the example you provide, where people robbed a bank despite knowing that police would come after them.

The police have achieved two goals; one being deterrence (bank robberies are rare)

An inherently ineffective approach. You need crimes to keep happening so that the police can arrest those responsible and thus achieve their deterrence. The incentive for the police is to allow and possibly even encourage crime, so that they have someone to make an example of.

and two, bringing the exceptions to the above to justice. Yet despite bank robberies being rare and the police catching the few who did try, the police are still a failure in your book because... They didn't pay the thieves enough to kindly desist from their actions?

The bank robbery did happen, so the police failed to prevent the bank robbery. I don't understand why you are so opposed to solving people's problems before they turn to crime.

[Ifreann]

Quite the opposite. We address the incentives to commit crime before the crime happens. Then people don't do crimes, because the thing they wanted from the crimes, they already have.

And to get to that point where crime disappears completely is a fucking pipe dream. As I said your stance depends on an impossible utopia.

My stance that removing the incentives to commit crime won't incentivise crime doesn't depend on an impossible utopia, just the linear nature of time.

---

So lets stop organising social groups like that.

Don’t hold your breath.

Okay.

No, you aren't. You're just giving examples of crimes, you're not doing anything to argue that these crimes cannot be prevented and our only recourse is to use state violence to assail these organisations.

Then let me make my point clear then.

These activities have always existed so long as humanity has existed. They will continue to exist so long as humans are in there natural state.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

And I never said that a policing authority are our only option, which you keep on seeming to skip over whenever I say it, but that they are a necessary part of any option.

Maybe you think they're necessary because of your misanthropic beliefs which you have mistaken for realism.

I might be ignoring some of your posts, but I don't think I've misrepresented anything you've said.

You very well have.

When I refer to "trying to just punish criminals", I'm not saying that you believe that to be the best possible approach, I'm describing how society currently functions.

And that’s I’m talking about.

Me describing how society currently functions is not me misrepresenting you.

And I don't see why the existence of crime necessitates police authority. The police are, after all, a relatively modern invention.

Modern police are, but executive authorities have always existed. The most common in shorts seemingly being the lynch mob, or at its most primitive exile or execution by the authority of the tribe.

And those aren't the police.

We did not always have them in the past, so it follows that we do not always need them in the future.

I sincerely question your view of history. Let me make the note that when I’m referring to pol is I’m referring to executive authorities in general, not just our modern Anglo definition of a modern police department.

And when I talk about the police I mean the police, not the many and varied historical organisations that were not the police but fulfilled some similar roles or wielded some similar powers. If I say "police" and you think I'm talking about people keeping watch for their prehistoric tribe at night, the problem is not my view of history.

[Adamede]

And to get to that point where crime disappears completely is a fucking pipe dream. As I said your stance depends on an impossible utopia.

My stance that removing the incentives to commit crime won't incentivise crime doesn't depend on an impossible utopia, just the linear nature of time.

Don’t hold your breath.

Okay.

Then let me make my point clear then.

These activities have always existed so long as humanity has existed. They will continue to exist so long as humans are in there natural state.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

And I never said that a policing authority are our only option, which you keep on seeming to skip over whenever I say it, but that they are a necessary part of any option.

Maybe you think they're necessary because of your misanthropic beliefs which you have mistaken for realism.

You very well have.

And that’s I’m talking about.

Me describing how society currently functions is not me misrepresenting you.

Modern police are, but executive authorities have always existed. The most common in shorts seemingly being the lynch mob, or at its most primitive exile or execution by the authority of the tribe.

And those aren't the police.

I sincerely question your view of history. Let me make the note that when I’m referring to pol is I’m referring to executive authorities in general, not just our modern Anglo definition of a modern police department.

And when I talk about the police I mean the police, not the many and varied historical organisations that were not the police but fulfilled some similar roles or wielded some similar powers. If I say "police" and you think I'm talking about people keeping watch for their prehistoric tribe at night, the problem is not my view of history.

Again with misrepresentations my arguments. Surely I’m not that bad of a writer.

It has nothing to do with misanthropic beliefs, but rather the fact that is a violent streak to humanity. Its rare, but not nonexistent, and will never go away so long as we are human, and I’ve yet to see a reason for as to why it will disappear in the future.

And didn’t mean that lunch mobs are the police, I’m saying is that they serve the same function. Just even worse.

My point is you some form of authority to enforce the law and capture those who break it. And police as of right now perform that role, and I’ve yet to see an actual workable alternative brought up by anyone on here. Just repeating same shit over and over and building straw men.

[SD_Film Artists]

What if they want more? Do the law-abiding people get more too?

They are the law-abiding people. That's the point. To solve the problems that lead to the crime before the crime happens.

I meant the people who weren't going to commit crimes in the first place, the ones who don't need to be bribed by the state. Though yes, if you insist on arguing over semantics both those groups are technically law-abiding.

How much will we have to pay people before they pinkie-promise not to do more crime?

Probably less than you're paying the cops who pinkie-promise not to abuse their power to violate people's rights.

Dodging the question with a crass generalisation. Infact like Ademede noticed this whole 30 page thread has been mostly question-dodging and circular arguments. It's not that I disagree with the alternative, it's that there's no alternative proposed at all other than some vague anti-police agenda where criminals have no culpability.

As for non-monetary answers we can't remove all crime by mental health policies and it may perpetuate negative stereotypes by attaching criminality to mental health and mental health to criminality.

We can destigmatise mental health problems

That's good. Hopefully it will cancel-out things like equating people with mental health issues to the Capitol rioters, which was touted in this thread earlier. This is offensive to people with mental health issues and it also gives an excuse to people who were criminaly at fault on Wednesday.

I think changes in community/national culture can lower crime and remove greed, but simply paying people off may only increase greed.

What? If people aren't being hurt in bank robberies, and aren't being hurt by the police, what does it matter if greed is increased? What does that even mean?

What do you mean? I was talking about how society can reduce crime without need for the police, so I thought you'd be glad. As for 'people getting hurt in banks' you're going to have to explain further if you wish for me to comment on random words in your head. Did you mean to quote somebody else?

The police have achieved two goals; one being deterrence (bank robberies are rare)

An inherently ineffective approach. You need crimes to keep happening so that the police can arrest those responsible and thus achieve their deterrence. The incentive for the police is to allow and possibly even encourage crime, so that they have someone to make an example of.

That sounds like the same logic of doctors being bad because they need disease to exist; or it might be, I'm honestly not sure where this even came from. Again I can't comment in what's in your head.

Anyway, I find that a police car in my home town is a nice sign of security even if they're not actively chasing someone. That's why 'bobbies on the beat' are a popular concept compared with police officers who are tied to a desk with red tape.

The bank robbery did happen, so the police failed to prevent the bank robbery.

I know, that's why I talked about them successfully arresting the rare people who are the exceptions to what is otherwise a very good deterrence. That's literally what I was explaining. Again what are you even trying to say? That we should get rid of police because they're not a 100% deterrence?

I don't understand why you are so opposed to solving people's problems before they turn to crime.

It'll be useful if you actually described what that entails rather than giving some vague spiel about criminals requireing payment to be convinced not to murder. Oh is this like reverse-hitmen?