Do we even need police?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Well, what’s funny is that the Old World and its more complex social dynamics aren’t actually irrelevant to America. It’s just that they are usually ignored by mainstream social advocates on both sides. Ironically the far-right actually has better understanding of it compared to Social Justice advocates even though their understanding is seriously distorted since they believe in a Jewish conspiracy and certainly consider Ashkenazim to be stronger than white gentiles per capita.

Interesting take; yeah, it’s clear you write/think a lot in terms of these Old World dynamics. When reading some of your posts, I almost feel like I’m reading a world history textbook rather than a commentary on present-day issues...?! This discussion seems like an offshoot of the original discussion, though, so I’m going to stop here.

I was born in China (and hate not just the communist party but also the collectivist and statist tradition) but culturally I’m very strongly influenced by Jewish people and Judaism. Hence I usually kind of talk like some pre-WWII Jewish dude in East Europe worried about calamities that will come as if the entire world is inherently East Europe in 1930s. I very strongly identify with mercantile tribes in general and hence support Anglo politics and Israel.

My view on the police is of course also very Old World. The police needs to exist. However in authoritarian countries such as China and Belarus they commit evil for the regime. That means the regime needs to be overthrown. The police can and should stay.

[Muralos]

Interesting take; yeah, it’s clear you write/think a lot in terms of these Old World dynamics. When reading some of your posts, I almost feel like I’m reading a world history textbook rather than a commentary on present-day issues...?! This discussion seems like an offshoot of the original discussion, though, so I’m going to stop here.

I was born in China (and hate not just the communist party but also the collectivist and statist tradition) but culturally I’m very strongly influenced by Jewish people and Judaism. Hence I usually kind of talk like some pre-WWII Jewish dude in East Europe worried about calamities that will come as if the entire world is inherently East Europe in 1930s. I very strongly identify with mercantile tribes in general and hence support Anglo politics and Israel.

My view on the police is of course also very Old World. The police needs to exist. However in authoritarian countries such as China and Belarus they commit evil for the regime. That means the regime needs to be overthrown. The police can and should stay.

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...

[Nejii]

I know I'm late but...

*January 6th happens*

Still think we need to abolish or castrate the police?...

[Muralos]

I know I'm late but...

*January 6th happens*

Still think we need to abolish or castrate the police?...

You are late, indeed! Some discussion took place over the past couple of days.

[Nejii]

I know I'm late but...

*January 6th happens*

Still think we need to abolish or castrate the police?...

You are late, indeed! Some discussion took place over the past couple of days.

Bloody blazes...

Ah well...

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I was born in China (and hate not just the communist party but also the collectivist and statist tradition) but culturally I’m very strongly influenced by Jewish people and Judaism. Hence I usually kind of talk like some pre-WWII Jewish dude in East Europe worried about calamities that will come as if the entire world is inherently East Europe in 1930s. I very strongly identify with mercantile tribes in general and hence support Anglo politics and Israel.

My view on the police is of course also very Old World. The police needs to exist. However in authoritarian countries such as China and Belarus they commit evil for the regime. That means the regime needs to be overthrown. The police can and should stay.

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...

To be blunt I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with the police in US. Usually when something about the police in a polity is seriously wrong it is unlikely that the police itself is actually a cause of it. For example the police of Hong Kong has become brutal. But that’s not because HK has a uniquely awful police system. “Police reform” and “Police abolition” would have been absurd and ineffective. What really needs to happen instead is the end of Chinese domination over HK. Similarly Belarus has a Lukashenka problem but not a police problem.

So what’s exactly going on with the police in US? From someone who is used to a lot more brutality both sides are indistinguishable since what they want are consistently way better than China. I don’t have time to think about the issue of whether someone was illegally arrested in US since people get illegally detained in China for a lot more absurd reasons and that this happens a lot more than any real and supposed atrocity in modern America (with Guantanamo an actual legitimate exception). My bar for good treatment is very low compared to most humans. To me the concentration camps in China, ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh, lack of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia and authoritarianism in Belarus are what I can understand and worry about. The police issue in US is not since it hasn’t reached the point of ethnic cleansing or massacres.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Actually it is an argument for abolishing the police, because if we change our approach to anti-social behaviour away from the carceral punitive system then we won't need the people whose job is to deliver people in chains to that system for incarceration.

And here I was thinking that the job of the police is to catch criminals. Silly me!

I was born in China (and hate not just the communist party but also the collectivist and statist tradition) but culturally I’m very strongly influenced by Jewish people and Judaism. Hence I usually kind of talk like some pre-WWII Jewish dude in East Europe worried about calamities that will come as if the entire world is inherently East Europe in 1930s. I very strongly identify with mercantile tribes in general and hence support Anglo politics and Israel.

My view on the police is of course also very Old World. The police needs to exist. However in authoritarian countries such as China and Belarus they commit evil for the regime. That means the regime needs to be overthrown. The police can and should stay.

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...

I'm generally only opposed to abolishing the police because it sounds like a nice idea that would be terrible in practice. Kinda like communism, really. It's a great idea, but when we tried it it went horribly.

[SD_Film Artists]

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.

Maybe I'm stretching here, but it seems like your problem with the approach I'm outlining is that you believe there are some people who are essentially immoral, as in immoral in their essence in some inherent way, regardless of their actual behaviour to date, and so to you it looks like I'm proposing to reward wicked people for their wickedness. Well, if I am, so what? If there are some people who just have evil in their souls or whatever then I am fine with paying them to stay at home and worship Satan. Better that than having them out hurting people.

I don't think people are born evil, but I do think that crime is immoral and thus the would-be criminals are immoral people.

If you want to treat this as an economic problem, an issue of monetary cost, then I'm afraid you will have to justify the rather substantial expenditure of money on police forces.

As with any national government branch is costs a lot of money. More to the point, it's difficult to compare the two systems when we don't even have vague theoretical numbers of what your idea would cost. Police expenditure is a known amount, whereas "helping people solve their problems" is a goal with no roadmap.

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.

Well what does having culpability even mean? What does it have to do with the police?

It means that crims are bad with no excuse. 'He had a gun to my head' is a mitigating circumstance; 'I didn't vote for this capitalist goverment' or whatever agenda you're trying to push is not a mitigating circumstance. They're guilty. They're wrong. They're in the clanger. They're eating porrage at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Indeed, fascism and bigotry are not mental illnesses, and mentally ill people are far more often the victims of crime than the perpetrators. But I'm talking about providing mental healthcare because I was talking about finding out what criminals want that's motivating them to do crimes and just giving them that before they do crimes

What if it's money? Do we just keep giving them money until they're happy? Where is the limit? What if they ask for more? This is why I was talking about greed. Some people are just greedy.

but in the case of some crimes that would obviously not be an option. We can't provide victims for a serial killer to stop them from going out and kidnapping victims, for the people who want things that would be inherently harmful to someone else to provide we would instead have to find a way to help them manage and control those feelings.

What if their feeling is that they prefer being a gang boss with power and money?

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?

I don't know how to more clearly express that my concern is people's safety and well-being. Maybe you don't understand that because you aren't reading it properly. I wasn't talking about people getting hurt in banks, I was talking about people getting hurt in bank robberies. Remember how we were talking about bank robberies? See, the primary thing I think is bad about bank robberies is that they're dangerous to the people caught up in them. I think it's bad when people get hurt.

I also agree it's bad when people get hurt in bank robberies.

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.

It's perfectly simple. If you are deterring crime by having the police arrest criminals, then what happens when there are no criminals to arrest? The police cannot carry out their deterrence mission. The police thus need crime to keep happening. The logic here isn't "The police are bad because [the stuff I just said]", it's "Using the arrest of criminals to deter crime is a bad idea because [the stuff I just said]".

If there's no crime then it means that whether by cultural changes or pure threat, there's no crime. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that police need crime to happen. Low crime rates is typically a good sign for a police chief.

You posed a question, "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?", and I answered it. I don't know what you find so confusing about that.

You said "The bank robbery did happen, so the police failed to prevent the bank robbery." as if that invalidated their deterrence (making bank robberies rare rather than very common) and sucessfuly capturing and later convicting the people who were involved in that robbery. This naturally implies that you consider the London police to be a complete failure because they didn't deter 100% of robberies, which I think is an unrealistic goal. Or...were you simply stating that the robbery happend? I think we've already established that it happened.

I have described what that entails, and you clearly understand it well enough to dismissively misrepresent it as "criminals requireing payment to be convinced not to murder". This kind of shit is pretty boring to deal with, so it'd be great if you could not.

You said that we should solve criminals' problems so that they don't commit crime in the first place. A lot of crims want money. Your notion implies that the state will effectively pay-off the would-be criminals to convince them that they don't need the extra money from their criminal actions. Again, what if they ask for more money? Are you just going to keep giving the would-be criminals more and more money or are you assuming that they'll just be content with whatever the state offers them like good little comrades?

[Sanghyeok]

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)

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

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)

It could be argued that those deterrents only work because the alternative is being caught by the police.

[Cordel One]

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)

It could be argued that those deterrents only work because the alternative is being caught by the police.

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

It could be argued that those deterrents only work because the alternative is being caught by the police.

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Police aren't terrible in general. Not that there aren't corrupt police officers or systems, but as a profession, they're vital.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

It could be argued that those deterrents only work because the alternative is being caught by the police.

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Or, y'know, reform it like I suggested in an earlier post:

The problem- not just in the US but in many other countries- is that police becomes a tool used overwhelmingly against the poor, suffers internal corruption to amazing amounts, and simply is ineffective in many cases.

Again, restructuring and screening of officers will deal with the latter two. The former, however, is not so much a problem of police as it is of government. That is a sign that the way the police are administered by our current government needs to change, and therefore we need to rid ourselves of the current neoliberal regimes and their ruling elites (which I'm honestly all for).

We are not saying anything about law enforcement officers themselves, but rather the system within which they operate. Even the finest ingredients will make a terrible soufflé if the oven's temperature is wrong. Similarly, "good people" (whichever that means) joining police forces will be forced into certain corrupt and classist roles by their environment and position.

Yeah, but does that really mean that every single police officer is forced to become corrupt and classist? I mean for crying out loud, in the Wehrmacht, a worse institution, there were still soldiers like Anton Schmid who were saving Jews from Hitler's horrific Holocaust in Europe. If there were good people who stood up to defy what their institution stood for in something as terrible as the Holocaust, then how much do you want to bet that there are quite a few officers who refuse to take on that corrupt role?

All I'm saying here is not to generalize about "the system" or officers in "the system." The system is quite complex and varies depending on where you live, for better or worse. Yes, it's a terrible system that unjustly leads to the deaths of minority groups here in the United States, but that's not to say the system can't be saved. Scrapping the police entirely will only cause more issues with less results. Reforming the police, even if it's more difficult, will lead to far fewer issues and will bring forward more results as those who are actually qualified take on the role of law enforcement.

And just to finish that connection to the Holocaust, we didn't abolish the entire country of Germany after WWII because of this dark period of history. We reformed it, rebuilt it, until it was better than what it used to be. Yes, it was hard, and it took a combined effort from occupying and local forces to fix the German system, but it still got done with far better results.

[Cordel One]

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Or, y'know, reform it like I suggested in an earlier post:

Again, restructuring and screening of officers will deal with the latter two. The former, however, is not so much a problem of police as it is of government. That is a sign that the way the police are administered by our current government needs to change, and therefore we need to rid ourselves of the current neoliberal regimes and their ruling elites (which I'm honestly all for).

Yeah, but does that really mean that every single police officer is forced to become corrupt and classist? I mean for crying out loud, in the Wehrmacht, a worse institution, there were still soldiers like Anton Schmid who were saving Jews from Hitler's horrific Holocaust in Europe. If there were good people who stood up to defy what their institution stood for in something as terrible as the Holocaust, then how much do you want to bet that there are quite a few officers who refuse to take on that corrupt role?

All I'm saying here is not to generalize about "the system" or officers in "the system." The system is quite complex and varies depending on where you live, for better or worse. Yes, it's a terrible system that unjustly leads to the deaths of minority groups here in the United States, but that's not to say the system can't be saved. Scrapping the police entirely will only cause more issues with less results. Reforming the police, even if it's more difficult, will lead to far fewer issues and will bring forward more results as those who are actually qualified take on the role of law enforcement.

And just to finish that connection to the Holocaust, we didn't abolish the entire country of Germany after WWII because of this dark period of history. We reformed it, rebuilt it, until it was better than what it used to be. Yes, it was hard, and it took a combined effort from occupying and local forces to fix the German system, but it still got done with far better results.

Or, y'know, don't.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Police aren't terrible in general. Not that there aren't corrupt police officers or systems, but as a profession, they're vital.

Obviously there's proof that the problems of the police are global, but there's no proof that it's as widespread as some here make it out to be. It's like some people in this thread think that almost every cop is corrupt and shoots unarmed black men.

Or, y'know, reform it like I suggested in an earlier post:

Or, y'know, don't.

Why?

[Sanghyeok]

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Police aren't terrible in general. Not that there aren't corrupt police officers or systems, but as a profession, they're vital.

Please re-read Kowani's post.

[Sanghyeok]

It's like some people in this thread think that almost every cop is corrupt and shoots unarmed black men.

Nobody here is arguing that.

[Sanghyeok]

It could be argued that if it were true we could use something less terrible than police instead.

Or, y'know, reform it like I suggested in an earlier post:

Again, restructuring and screening of officers will deal with the latter two. The former, however, is not so much a problem of police as it is of government. That is a sign that the way the police are administered by our current government needs to change, and therefore we need to rid ourselves of the current neoliberal regimes and their ruling elites (which I'm honestly all for).

Yeah, but does that really mean that every single police officer is forced to become corrupt and classist? I mean for crying out loud, in the Wehrmacht, a worse institution, there were still soldiers like Anton Schmid who were saving Jews from Hitler's horrific Holocaust in Europe. If there were good people who stood up to defy what their institution stood for in something as terrible as the Holocaust, then how much do you want to bet that there are quite a few officers who refuse to take on that corrupt role?

All I'm saying here is not to generalize about "the system" or officers in "the system." The system is quite complex and varies depending on where you live, for better or worse. Yes, it's a terrible system that unjustly leads to the deaths of minority groups here in the United States, but that's not to say the system can't be saved. Scrapping the police entirely will only cause more issues with less results. Reforming the police, even if it's more difficult, will lead to far fewer issues and will bring forward more results as those who are actually qualified take on the role of law enforcement.

And just to finish that connection to the Holocaust, we didn't abolish the entire country of Germany after WWII because of this dark period of history. We reformed it, rebuilt it, until it was better than what it used to be. Yes, it was hard, and it took a combined effort from occupying and local forces to fix the German system, but it still got done with far better results.

Your comparison to Germany is rather interesting, considering the system behind those atrocities (Nazi Germany) was abolished. Germany would be far worse off than today if the occupiers had simply attempted to "reform" fascism.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Yes, but the system of policing isn't fascist as a whole.

[Comfed]

In my opinion, without state-controlled law enforcement we would just descend into the rule of the strong. The scenario the OP has outlined is impossible, because there will always be people who commit crime. This is true with or without police, but without them, we are virtually powerless to stop it.

Now, I do agree that much of the current criminal justice system needs change. But it is a gross overreaction to abolish the institution.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Or, y'know, reform it like I suggested in an earlier post:

Your comparison to Germany is rather interesting, considering the system behind those atrocities (Nazi Germany) was abolished. Germany would be far worse off than today if the occupiers had simply attempted to "reform" fascism.

We got rid of the elements of abuse (fascism), but we still kept the overall system (Germany). Purging the bad elements and leaving or even emphasizing the good ones (freedom and democracy were not new concepts in Germany).

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

In my opinion, without state-controlled law enforcement we would just descend into the rule of the strong. The scenario the OP has outlined is impossible, because there will always be people who commit crime. This is true with or without police, but without them, we are virtually powerless to stop it.

Now, I do agree that much of the current criminal justice system needs change. But it is a gross overreaction to abolish the institution.

Bingo. Sadly, there will always be nasties in this world.

[Sanghyeok]

Your comparison to Germany is rather interesting, considering the system behind those atrocities (Nazi Germany) was abolished. Germany would be far worse off than today if the occupiers had simply attempted to "reform" fascism.

We got rid of the elements of abuse (fascism), but we still kept the overall system (Germany). Purging the bad elements and leaving or even emphasizing the good ones (freedom and democracy were not new concepts in Germany).

Nazi Germany was the reason for the bad behaviour, and it was removed entirely.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

In my opinion, without state-controlled law enforcement we would just descend into the rule of the strong. The scenario the OP has outlined is impossible, because there will always be people who commit crime. This is true with or without police, but without them, we are virtually powerless to stop it.

Now, I do agree that much of the current criminal justice system needs change. But it is a gross overreaction to abolish the institution.

As far as I can tell, even anarchist movements (in territories they control) have law enforcement. So if anarchists still have the institution, then what hope is there that capitalist states like the United States, United Kingdom, France, or Germany could possibly abolish it?

[Sanghyeok]

In my opinion, without state-controlled law enforcement we would just descend into the rule of the strong. The scenario the OP has outlined is impossible, because there will always be people who commit crime. This is true with or without police, but without them, we are virtually powerless to stop it.

Now, I do agree that much of the current criminal justice system needs change. But it is a gross overreaction to abolish the institution.

Bingo. Sadly, there will always be nasties in this world.

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.