Do we even need police?

[Adamede]

Than do more substantial reforms.

Still won't do enough, it's rotten to the core

Replacing a political/societal structure is still a type of reform.

[Adamede]

There is no need to abolish the police in Japan.

Why do you say that? Japan desperately needs to abolish both the legal and police systems.

Sounds like you need a better saying then.

2020 has been filled with complaining about how people misconstrue their movements due to the specific language used, maybe in 2021 we can decide to use clear language instead.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Why do you say that? Japan desperately needs to abolish both the legal and police systems.

Sounds like you need a better saying then.

2020 has been filled with complaining about how people misconstrue their movements due to the specific language used, maybe in 2021 we can decide to use clear language instead.

From now on, we shall only communicate via Google Translate.

[Cordel One]

Still won't do enough, it's rotten to the core

Replacing a political/societal structure is still a type of reform.

Depends on how radical the reppacement is.

[The Lone Alliance]

So it changes the name and shifts the duties but does not eliminate the service.

You're wrong when you say we don't want to eliminate the "service of police", since we are arguing for elimination of many duties of police as they exist today.

And whoever takes over those duties will inevitably become police in mindset.

You say social workers should do the suicide thing, fine the social worker shows up and the person is planning a murder suicide, the social worker fails and said suicidal person kills someone and then themselves, people will demand that the Social Workers should have guns to stop such a thing from happening, this requires training to use the gun, this changes the social worker's mindset from simple social worker to protector which in turn puts them in the police mindset.

Then one day their training is forced to be put to the test a suicidal person is shot and you cry in outrage because a social worker just acted like a cop.

Or alternatively you tell the Social Workers they now have to go into a potentially dangerous situation to talk down a suicidal person without back up because COPS BAD, now you're demanding that social workers put their lives at risk.

Which again makes them into cops.

[Page]

You're wrong when you say we don't want to eliminate the "service of police", since we are arguing for elimination of many duties of police as they exist today.

And whoever takes over those duties will inevitably become police in mindset.

You say social workers should do the suicide thing, fine the social worker shows up and the person is planning a murder suicide, the social worker fails and said suicidal person kills someone and then themselves, people will demand that the Social Workers should have guns to stop such a thing from happening, this requires training to use the gun, this changes the social worker's mindset from simple social worker to protector which in turn puts them in the police mindset.

Then one day their training is forced to be put to the test a suicidal person is shot and you cry in outrage because a social worker just acted like a cop.

Or alternatively you tell the Social Workers they now have to go into a potentially dangerous situation to talk down a suicidal person without back up because COPS BAD, now you're demanding that social workers put their lives at risk.

Which again makes them into cops.

Murder suicides are pretty rare compared to suicide alone. There should be no more expectation that most social workers will have to deal with this any more than the amount of teachers who have to deal with a shooter. And as far as I know, arming teachers is something our society has decided is a bad idea despite the fact there are sometimes shooters. And basically anyone no matter their profession has a chance of encountering a very dangerous person but no one is talking about arming nurses or bus drivers, so I don't buy into this slippery slope of social workers turning into cops when it hasn't happened for teachers, nurses, and bus drivers.

And honestly, even if a social worker is occasionally killed by a person they are trying to help, while that is tragic, many, many more lives will be saved overall by making this change because it's much more common for cops to kill a non-violent suicidal person than for a suicidal person to kill someone else.

[The Lone Alliance]

Murder suicides are pretty rare compared to suicide alone. There should be no more expectation that most social workers will have to deal with this any more than the amount of teachers who have to deal with a shooter. And as far as I know, arming teachers is something our society has decided is a bad idea despite the fact there are sometimes shooters. And basically anyone no matter their profession has a chance of encountering a very dangerous person but no one is talking about arming nurses or bus drivers, so I don't buy into this slippery slope of social workers turning into cops when it hasn't happened for teachers, nurses, and bus drivers.

Many schools at this point have some sort of resource officer on site so the teachers don't have to carry guns.
Hospitals also have guards so nurses don't have to be armed.

And honestly, even if a social worker is occasionally killed by a person they are trying to help, while that is tragic, many, many more lives will be saved overall by making this change because it's much more common for cops to kill a non-violent suicidal person than for a suicidal person to kill someone else.

That is until no one wants to be a Social Worker because you just declared their lives expendable and that you have decided that the lives of suicidal people are more important than their own non suicidal lives.

[Page]

Murder suicides are pretty rare compared to suicide alone. There should be no more expectation that most social workers will have to deal with this any more than the amount of teachers who have to deal with a shooter. And as far as I know, arming teachers is something our society has decided is a bad idea despite the fact there are sometimes shooters. And basically anyone no matter their profession has a chance of encountering a very dangerous person but no one is talking about arming nurses or bus drivers, so I don't buy into this slippery slope of social workers turning into cops when it hasn't happened for teachers, nurses, and bus drivers.

Many schools at this point have some sort of resource officer on site so the teachers don't have to carry guns.
Hospitals also have guards so nurses don't have to be armed.

And honestly, even if a social worker is occasionally killed by a person they are trying to help, while that is tragic, many, many more lives will be saved overall by making this change because it's much more common for cops to kill a non-violent suicidal person than for a suicidal person to kill someone else.

That is until no one wants to be a Social Worker because you just declared their lives expendable and that you have decided that the lives of suicidal people are more important than their own non suicidal lives.

To say that a person of a certain profession should not be be armed while they work doesn't mean their life is expendable. If that were the case then anyone whose job involves contact with strangers is expendable.

[Sarasaland Kingdom]

Right, police everywhere serve to protect the state and its interests, not us.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the OP, and if it wasn't exactly what you meant, I do apologize but may my opinion echo other users with more radical views.

I feel like everybody in this thread lives under a psychotic dictatorship. No one trusts nobody or what ? It might sound very candid but I think we should just start with a little love and logic and less stupid reactionary and conspiracy theories.

Police officers are citizens too, they are not some corrupt minions in most cases. This maybe wasn't the OP intention but my first read at it went like "Cops are all gestapo officers". How can a reasonable minded person say that. I'm going to be very radical in my comparisons and I mean no harm but isn't this similar to saying "All black people are criminals ?".

Disclaimer, I live in France, where often police brutality is highlighted, especially by the riot police. We could argue, especially because it is riot police, that indeed they serve interest of the state, but, do they ?

The promise of a working democracy is that the laws are written by the representatives of the people, granting them a legitimate value in the eyes of democracy. If a law is deemed unjust latter on, there are legal means to bring it down. When riot police puts down a illegal or violent protest, it's not censorship or suppression, it is the law. And moreover, putting down a violent demonstration is protecting local populace. Have you ever been near a violent protest or witnessed one?

I've personally seen 200 teenagers assaulting a public high-school with unrelated students inside. They started a bush fire and destroyed a bus stop shelter. The riot police was deployed, a team of only six policemen and policewomen. They secured the high school perimeter, ensuring evacuation of trapped students. I state this example to prove my point : Police was made to protect the people and enforce the law so that justice be made. (oh and when police goes on strike against government policies, how can some still say they are puppets?

Now on the subject of police brutality : it's a big no no of course, but the way you phrased it in the OP seems like all police forces, and individual officers commit police brutality. As I said, this is very unrelatable to many countries and highly untrue and biased.

I don't really know in depth the US police system, but you seem to include all police systems in this OP so there's my European view on the subject.
France has been the theatre of many racist acts of police brutality lately which is a shame, but blaming the entire police force is just stupid. Just think about black or Muslim police officers, they are police officers too.

Reforms are needed, especially in the United States but about the alternatives you proposed, let me say something. France is well-known to be a very spendthrift welfare state, that has implemented many reinsertion and crime prevention programs but still there is racial police brutality. The reform must actually be done elsewhere in my opinion (I'm talking about reforms in France). First we must ensure accountability of police officers with a more efficient and transparent policing-crimes related justice. Enhance training and refrain the use of violent protocols. While obviously keeping the reinsertion and crime prevention programs.

Unless laws are biased (which I (maybe naively) believe it's the case in France at least), you can't say an entire police force is racist. Individuals are racist, not a constitutional institution.

Now about the United States. One word : Clusterfuck. Wtf guys, Firstly, why are there billions of different police offices, the system is very intricate and justice isn't independent enough. I feel like Justice is more of a marketable service in the US more than an essential public power. Secondly, no wonder the cops are easy on the trigger, everyone is susceptible to posses a military grade weapon. Thirdly, in France and in the US the society is just too fragmented. How can you want to live in harmony if each and every minority wants to basically be recognised a country of their own ? Communitarianism is gone too far : whites believe every other minority wants to eat them alive (which is untrue). Blacks feel they are being systematically eliminated (which is highly exaggerated). Muslims think everyone wants to erase their culture (which is ... sometimes kind of true unfortunately).

The police as "the organism meant to protect people and enforce law and order" as nothing to do with racism inherently. It wasn't created to harm a specific community. It is some of the people that run or are part of that are the issue. Nothing a judicial reform and a massive transparent investigation could solve (the purge as some positive aspects). And promote racial (I hate this word, it implies there are different races, the EU banned its use in law texts and using it in France is equivalent to using the "n" word) mixing in the police ranks. More black, Muslim, or any ethnicity in the police ranks and you will end up with a more comprehensive less systematically racist force.

No, getting rid of the police is highly unreasonable and is quite stupid. We always talk about when the police go wrong, but they most of the time go right. Police brutality is a rare occurrence especially considering the size and the number of guns circulating in the US. It must be stopped of course, but shouldn't question the police's very existence.

Replacing the police with a voluntary force will go like that :

I want to volunteer! Right, so I need to learn the laws, psychology, maths, probably a few self-defence moves... and I will enforce laws all week long, 14h a day ... Wait, isn't that just what a policeman is currently anyway? Police officers are volunteers, no one forced them to join the police.

I think I lost my thought process somewhere in the middle. This thread does sound like a China-thread too.

[Nilokeras]

You say social workers should do the suicide thing, fine the social worker shows up ...

Here again we have the classic 'I invent a specific scenario and make you pretend that you believe in it' canard. Abolition does not mean that the police will be replaced just with social workers. Nor does it mean abolitionism somehow missed the fact that giving social workers guns risks recapitulating police patterns of behaviour.

[Adamede]

Sounds like you need a better saying then.

2020 has been filled with complaining about how people misconstrue their movements due to the specific language used, maybe in 2021 we can decide to use clear language instead.

From now on, we shall only communicate via Google Translate.

Only after translating absentee into multiple languages and then back.

[Aeritai]

Question for people who want to abolish the police/law enforcement. When you say you want to abolish all forms of policing does that mean you also want to abolish Park Rangers? If so, what would you replace Park Rangers with to protect the wildlife?

I'm just generally curious about this position.

[Sanghyeok]

Question for people who want to abolish the police/law enforcement. When you say you want to abolish all forms of policing does that mean you also want to abolish Park Rangers? If so, what would you replace Park Rangers with to protect the wildlife?

I'm just generally curious about this position.

Can you explain what they are and what they do? I've heard of this term before but don't understand their role well enough.

[Aeritai]

Question for people who want to abolish the police/law enforcement. When you say you want to abolish all forms of policing does that mean you also want to abolish Park Rangers? If so, what would you replace Park Rangers with to protect the wildlife?

I'm just generally curious about this position.

Can you explain what they are and what they do? I've heard of this term before but don't understand their role well enough.

From Wikipedia

A ranger, park ranger, park warden, or forest ranger is a person entrusted with protecting and preserving parklands – national, state, provincial, or local parks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_ra ... al%20parks.

[Adamede]

Question for people who want to abolish the police/law enforcement. When you say you want to abolish all forms of policing does that mean you also want to abolish Park Rangers? If so, what would you replace Park Rangers with to protect the wildlife?

I'm just generally curious about this position.

Can you explain what they are and what they do? I've heard of this term before but don't understand their role well enough.

Park rangers are basically federal and state level police responsible for upholding federal and state environmental laws within national parks. Than you’ve also got those who work for the state fish and wildlife departments who handle similar duties through the state.

Tl;dr bunny cops.

[Elbren]

We need private police to protect property rights.

[Adamede]

We need private police to protect property rights.

Ah yes, the McPolice.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

"Either policing becomes an actual law enforcement job or law enforcement is removed from it." Is that the position of abolitionists if I'm reading this correctly? If so, I'd be more open to the idea of "abolishing" the police (considering it wouldn't really be abolition, still just police reform with extra steps).

The problem is that 'law enforcement' as a portfolio for an entire agency is entirely too vague and a surefire recipe for mission creep and abuse, as well as duplicating effort that its better dealt with at differing levels of government. Is there a reason why every municipality needs its own conglomerated anti-criminal intelligence/counterintelligence, paramilitary security, traffic infraction and crisis counseling service? Abolitionism is the recognition that all of those functions are better allocated to their own specialists in new departments with dedicated training and budgetary support, and not rolled into the single role of 'police officer' as part of an agency with a very long and colourful history of abuse, corruption and violence.

So you're telling me that "abolish the police" actually means "split up the many jobs the police have?"

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

First we must ensure accountability of police officers with a more efficient and transparent policing-crimes related justice. Enhance training and refrain the use of violent protocols. While obviously keeping the reinsertion and crime prevention programs.

I've already proposed screening and better training along with reducing elements of abuse (demilitarizing the police). It was shot down by calls to abolish the police.

Your ideas probably aren't going to get very far in this thread.

[Zendasai]

Seeing this stupid question in the latest forum topics section is really getting on my nerves.

But, the answer is; yes of course we do.

[Nilokeras]

The problem is that 'law enforcement' as a portfolio for an entire agency is entirely too vague and a surefire recipe for mission creep and abuse, as well as duplicating effort that its better dealt with at differing levels of government. Is there a reason why every municipality needs its own conglomerated anti-criminal intelligence/counterintelligence, paramilitary security, traffic infraction and crisis counseling service? Abolitionism is the recognition that all of those functions are better allocated to their own specialists in new departments with dedicated training and budgetary support, and not rolled into the single role of 'police officer' as part of an agency with a very long and colourful history of abuse, corruption and violence.

So you're telling me that "abolish the police" actually means "split up the many jobs the police have?"

In the same way 'abolish slavery' means 'split up and reform the many jobs slaves do'.

[Labbos]

So you're telling me that "abolish the police" actually means "split up the many jobs the police have?"

In the same way 'abolish slavery' means 'split up and reform the many jobs slaves do'.

They were abolishing slavery, not work. Having free people do work was the only way to abolish slavery. Moving the work between slaves wouldn't have abolished slavery.

But the question here is different: does anybody continue doing the police's job? If someone does, if they're enforcing the law, then they're de facto the police, and so the police haven't been abolished. If nobody does then laws mean nothing, because why obey a law you disagree with without fear of punishment?

[Jabberwocky]

Someone broke into your house and stole your car? We'll be sure to have a heartfelt talk with him. Part of our social awareness approach.

[Labbos]

Someone broke into your house and stole your car? We'll be sure to have a heartfelt talk with him. Part of our social awareness approach.

Hopefully they didn't steal your extensive fingerprint collection, otherwise you won't know who did it.

[Kubra]

In the same way 'abolish slavery' means 'split up and reform the many jobs slaves do'.

They were abolishing slavery, not work. Having free people do work was the only way to abolish slavery. Moving the work between slaves wouldn't have abolished slavery.

But the question here is different: does anybody continue doing the police's job? If someone does, if they're enforcing the law, then they're de facto the police, and so the police haven't been abolished. If nobody does then laws mean nothing, because why obey a law you disagree with without fear of punishment?

>they were abolishing slavery, not work
yes. That's what the guy the said. Yes, the task of law enforcement remains, though its practices and formal organisation changes.
It "abolishes" the police insofar as that refers to a specific form of law enforcement, one that is relatively new and no doubt better than what preceded it but y'know there's always room for change, you feel? Out with the old, in with the new.