Do we even need police?

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

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.

We didn't abolish Germany...

[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.

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?

As Kropotkin noted (I forgot the exact quote): changing and removing parts and bits is not enough, all parts must be changed together. I do not know if police abolition is possible before the end of capitalism, but I do know preparations for such an abolition are more than possible even in states like those you mentioned.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

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.

You say this last statement without evidence to back it up.

You might be relying on Kowani's post too much to do the arguing/evidence for you...

[Cordel One]

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

We didn't abolish Germany...

You abolished the previous government and we took your scientists.

[Sanghyeok]

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

We didn't abolish Germany...

I never said we abolished Germany. We abolished Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany committed those crimes.

[Sanghyeok]

You say this last statement without evidence to back it up.

You might be relying on Kowani's post too much to do the arguing/evidence for you...

Please read my next paragraph.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

We didn't abolish Germany...

You abolished the previous government and we took your scientists.

We abolished the government, but not the entire country.

We didn't abolish Germany...

I never said we abolished Germany. We abolished Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany committed those crimes.

So is Nazi Germany just not Germany now?

[Glorious Hong Kong]

After the horrifying events of Jan. 6 in Washington D.C., most of the Antifa/BLM leftists and Democrats who were previously in favor of defunding and abolishing the police would probably say yes we do. Meanwhile, pro-Trump, QAnon extremists are stomping on Thin Blue Line flags and calling the police traitors for daring to even stand in their way.

My opinion: Yes, we absolutely need police. If the cops turn bad, we need to replace them with good cops.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

The police system causes crime? Wut.

What does this alternative entail, specifically? Out of curiosity; not trying to be snappy.

[Sanghyeok]

You abolished the previous government and we took your scientists.

We abolished the government, but not the entire country.

I never said we abolished Germany. We abolished Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany committed those crimes.

So is Nazi Germany just not Germany now?

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

[Comfed]

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.

Crime exists at such high rates because many people don't have much to lose. If we changed that then crime would certainly go down, but that doesn't mean we should abolish the profession that literally exists to stop people from doing it. Could it be done better? Certainly, but we shouldn't get rid of it.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

You say this last statement without evidence to back it up.

You might be relying on Kowani's post too much to do the arguing/evidence for you...

Please read my next paragraph.

That doesn't actually prevent non-financial crimes. Crime will still be a significant issue, ergo there will still be lots of crime to commit and lots of crime being committed.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

We abolished the government, but not the entire country.

So is Nazi Germany just not Germany now?

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

It's also law enforcement.

[Cordel One]

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

It's also law enforcement.

Only they're horribly ineffective. From Kowani's post again:

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.

[Sanghyeok]

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

It's also law enforcement.

Saying police enforce laws is inaccurate in most cases. Do they enforce pollution laws or financial crimes? Do they ensure building standards are followed? Do they consider corruption, wage theft and compensation issues, and workplace safety?

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

We abolished the government, but not the entire country.

So is Nazi Germany just not Germany now?

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

No, policing is a form of law enforcement. That is the equivalent here in the metaphor.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

It's also law enforcement.

Saying police enforce laws is inaccurate in most cases. Do they enforce pollution laws or financial crimes? Do they ensure building standards are followed? Do they consider corruption, wage theft and compensation issues, and workplace safety?

So are you saying that nobody enforces laws? That law enforcement doesn't exist?

I don't understand what logical conclusion could come from this.

[Sanghyeok]

Nazi Germany can be said to be a form of Germany, much like policing is a form of "crime prevention".

No, policing is a form of law enforcement. That is the equivalent here in the metaphor.

Fine, "law enforcement". Therefore, if Nazi Germany:Germany::Policing:Law Enforcement, and the former in both comparisons is unneeded or unwanted, then we replace them.

[Sanghyeok]

Saying police enforce laws is inaccurate in most cases. Do they enforce pollution laws or financial crimes? Do they ensure building standards are followed? Do they consider corruption, wage theft and compensation issues, and workplace safety?

So are you saying that nobody enforces laws? That law enforcement doesn't exist?

I don't understand what logical conclusion could come from this.

I'm saying their claim that police are needed for "law enforcement" isn't accurate usually. What does "law enforcement" mean? Solving crime? Stopping crimes as they occur? Preventing crimes? Upholding the law? Because police have shown time and again they're not doing those things.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

No, policing is a form of law enforcement. That is the equivalent here in the metaphor.

Fine, "law enforcement". Therefore, if Nazi Germany:Germany::Policing:Law Enforcement, and the former in both comparisons is unneeded or unwanted, then we replace them.

That'd be true if all aspects of Nazi Germany were erased. They weren't, but it's getting late and so I'll have to wait on proving this until tomorrow.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

So are you saying that nobody enforces laws? That law enforcement doesn't exist?

I don't understand what logical conclusion could come from this.

I'm saying their claim that police are needed for "law enforcement" isn't accurate usually. What does "law enforcement" mean? Solving crime? Stopping crimes as they occur? Preventing crimes? Upholding the law? Because police have shown time and again they're not doing those things.

Then who enforces and uploads the laws? Nobody?

That is the question being asked here.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

We didn't abolish Germany...

I never said we abolished Germany. We abolished Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany committed those crimes.

Similarly there is no need to abolish police. The police itself is almost never an actual cause of social issues. Instead look at what’s behind it.

[Bahia Roja]

Similarly there is no need to abolish police. The police itself is almost never an actual cause of social issues. Instead look at what’s behind it.

I agree. But, if we solve the issues behind social issues, then what do we need the police for?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Similarly there is no need to abolish police. The police itself is almost never an actual cause of social issues. Instead look at what’s behind it.

I agree. But, if we solve the issues behind social issues, then what do we need the police for?

Apprehending criminals.

[Sanghyeok]

I agree. But, if we solve the issues behind social issues, then what do we need the police for?

Apprehending criminals.

Which police don't seem to be doing very well- in some countries they fail to do so entirely, while in others they force innocent people to confess to crimes they never committed.