NationStates

Police are often seen as something necessary to protect lives, prevent crime, and preserve order. However, in practice this has rarely been the case in countries around the world. Instead, cases abound where police have failed to complete their duties, and instead not only bring harm to their communities through brutalising and terrorising their residents through beatings and sexual assault, continuously place business interests above the common people's, and preserving property instead of lives among others. Instead, some policy makers propose replacing police with solutions we know to be effective, such as rehabilitation of criminals as opposed to punitive punishment, decriminalising non-violent crimes, and spend more on mental health care, housing and education.

What do you think about police abolition entirely (in all nations) ? I support immediate reforms to reduce police power and provide more funding to welfare initiatives that reduce incentives and necessity for crime, with a long term plan of removing police as an institution.

We should have police, plain and simple. Not every apple falls so close to the tree, you know.

We need some group of law enforcement people. A lot of people have suggested, as a replacement, schemes that are basically just police but called something different and with slight changes. So taking "police" to mean "people specially trained for law enforcement", I would say yes.

Most likely, because without police it would be really, really hard to stop crimes when they are happening. You can’t prevent all crimes, so if they do happen then... well, it would probably succeed. And crime won’t go away immediately, so removing police would be bad in the short run in my opinion.

Not everyone that commits crimes is doing it out of desperation, and private security are only going to be more biased because they'd be loyal to their employers.

If you don't mind me shooting litter bugs, and fare beaters, sure.

Personally I prefer the cops

Oh come on, they are the best. Ghost in the Machine is pretty cool.

USS Monitor wrote:Not everyone that commits crimes is doing it out of desperation, and private security are only going to be more biased because they'd be loyal to their employers.

Exactly this. Private security is going to be worse as they really have no oversight

Technically all laws are not for the general public but for the minority of assholes and idiots who, for one reason or another, commit asshole or idiotic acts. Given a system that identified the causes of asshole or idiot behaviour then we could not only do away with police but laws altogether.

I tend to watch a fair few crime programs and often it's really just a case of someone easily identified as violent or criminal but nothing is done because they haven't technically broken the law up until the point they do and then the police step in. It's retroactive ensuring laws need to be broken before any action is taken, as opposed to pre-emptive stepping in to alleviate the cause, whether violence, temptation or mere circumstance.

If there was no law against murder it's not like the vast majority of us would happily head off to murder people, it tends to happen in fairly specific circumstances that can be identified. How often have I seen cases where the police are called out to increasing domestic abuse yet do very little about it.

Certainly not something that can be done overnight but if we applied a degree of science to it I suspect that not only could we do away with police but laws in and of themselves for the most part.

Bombadil wrote:Technically all laws are not for the general public but for the minority of assholes and idiots who, for one reason or another, commit asshole or idiotic acts. Given a system that identified the causes of asshole or idiot behaviour then we could not only do away with police but laws altogether.

I tend to watch a fair few crime programs and often it's really just a case of someone easily identified as violent or criminal but nothing is done because they haven't technically broken the law up until the point they do and then the police step in. It's retroactive ensuring laws need to be broken before any action is taken, as opposed to pre-emptive stepping in to alleviate the cause, whether violence, temptation or mere circumstance.

If there was no law against murder it's not like the vast majority of us would happily head off to murder people, it tends to happen in fairly specific circumstances that can be identified. How often have I seen cases where the police are called out to increasing domestic abuse yet do very little about it.

Certainly not something that can be done overnight but if we applied a degree of science to it I suspect that not only could we do away with police but laws in and of themselves for the most part.

Is your idea then more similar to pre-crime? It's a good idea, there's always challenges to implementing it but that's not the point. The point is, what would you call the people that are doing the pre-crime analysis and enforcement? They'd not be much different from... police.

Seems like a massive overcorrection.

Bombadil wrote:Technically all laws are not for the general public but for the minority of assholes and idiots who, for one reason or another, commit asshole or idiotic acts. Given a system that identified the causes of asshole or idiot behaviour then we could not only do away with police but laws altogether.

I tend to watch a fair few crime programs and often it's really just a case of someone easily identified as violent or criminal but nothing is done because they haven't technically broken the law up until the point they do and then the police step in. It's retroactive ensuring laws need to be broken before any action is taken, as opposed to pre-emptive stepping in to alleviate the cause, whether violence, temptation or mere circumstance.

If there was no law against murder it's not like the vast majority of us would happily head off to murder people, it tends to happen in fairly specific circumstances that can be identified. How often have I seen cases where the police are called out to increasing domestic abuse yet do very little about it.

Certainly not something that can be done overnight but if we applied a degree of science to it I suspect that not only could we do away with police but laws in and of themselves for the most part.

You are advocating for preventive detention?

Quartia and Karafuto wrote:

Bombadil wrote:Technically all laws are not for the general public but for the minority of assholes and idiots who, for one reason or another, commit asshole or idiotic acts. Given a system that identified the causes of asshole or idiot behaviour then we could not only do away with police but laws altogether.

I tend to watch a fair few crime programs and often it's really just a case of someone easily identified as violent or criminal but nothing is done because they haven't technically broken the law up until the point they do and then the police step in. It's retroactive ensuring laws need to be broken before any action is taken, as opposed to pre-emptive stepping in to alleviate the cause, whether violence, temptation or mere circumstance.

If there was no law against murder it's not like the vast majority of us would happily head off to murder people, it tends to happen in fairly specific circumstances that can be identified. How often have I seen cases where the police are called out to increasing domestic abuse yet do very little about it.

Certainly not something that can be done overnight but if we applied a degree of science to it I suspect that not only could we do away with police but laws in and of themselves for the most part.

Is your idea then more similar to pre-crime? It's a good idea, there's always challenges to implementing it but that's not the point. The point is, what would you call the people that are doing the pre-crime analysis and enforcement? They'd not be much different from... police.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about arresting people pre-crime, I'm talking about a degree of intervention and check-in's. It may not be 100% solvable but even a good reduction in crime through identification of clear indicators of criminal behaviour and subsequent alleviation of the issues that lead to such is preferable to such a retroactive system.

Hence the example of domestic violence as a precursor to the majority of murders, proper identification and intervention would resolve a lot of this rather than the current 'well if s/he won't press charges there's not much we can do' approach.

Random criminals are fairly rare, more often there are clear signs of behaviour preceding crime.

For softer issues of, say, littering or dangerous driving, a degree of social nudge psychology can address this in terms of changing mindsets about anti-social behaviour.

Police abolition is mega cringe

This is a monumentally stupid idea. What’s your replacement? Whose going to maintain law and order and enforce the law?

The solution to issues with the police is defunding or abolition but reform such as banning certain practices, creating community policing, deescalation and having more transparency such as banning encryption of radios.

Sanghyeok wrote:Police are often seen as something necessary to protect lives, prevent crime, and preserve order. However, in practice this has rarely been the case in countries around the world. Instead, cases abound where police have failed to complete their duties, and instead not only bring harm to their communities through brutalising and terrorising their residents through beatings and sexual assault, continuously place business interests above the common people's, and preserving property instead of lives among others. Instead, some policy makers propose replacing police with solutions we know to be effective, such as rehabilitation of criminals as opposed to punitive punishment, decriminalising non-violent crimes, and spend more on mental health care, housing and education.

What do you think about police abolition entirely (in all nations) ? I support immediate reforms to reduce police power and provide more funding to welfare initiatives that reduce incentives and necessity for crime, with a long term plan of removing police as an institution.

I know problems with the police vary from country to country. What are the problems with the police in Japan? Is it better or worse than we have it in the U.S and is there a particular issue that Japan faces with police that we don't?

Dangine wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:Police are often seen as something necessary to protect lives, prevent crime, and preserve order. However, in practice this has rarely been the case in countries around the world. Instead, cases abound where police have failed to complete their duties, and instead not only bring harm to their communities through brutalising and terrorising their residents through beatings and sexual assault, continuously place business interests above the common people's, and preserving property instead of lives among others. Instead, some policy makers propose replacing police with solutions we know to be effective, such as rehabilitation of criminals as opposed to punitive punishment, decriminalising non-violent crimes, and spend more on mental health care, housing and education.

What do you think about police abolition entirely (in all nations) ? I support immediate reforms to reduce police power and provide more funding to welfare initiatives that reduce incentives and necessity for crime, with a long term plan of removing police as an institution.

I know problems with the police vary from country to country. What are the problems with the police in Japan? Is it better or worse than we have it in the U.S and is there a particular issue that Japan faces with police that we don't?

One thing I've noticed, certainly with reactions to the pandemic, is that government and people go hand in hand. It's like prisons, if every prisoner combined to overthrow a prison they would succeed. Similar with government, a basic observance of social community is required. So in Taiwan, for example, you had sensible government measures and a sensible people, similar for most nations that dealt well with the pandemic. For HK, dumb ass government but cautious people, in a sense the actions of the people precede the nature of the government (at least in a democratic society..).

So it's difficult to create solutions for policing if you don't have a civil minded population. Comparing Japan to, say, the US in terms of police is not particularly easy given they're faced with very different societal issues.

So the question is about how we address societal issues better that reduce anti-social behaviour as opposed to just 'how do we reform the police?'.

Of course we need the police. Soon, if the left has it's way, there will be extremely tight gun laws leaving more people defenseless. Take away the police and what you have is a bloodbath

Romextly wrote:Of course we need the police. Soon, if the left has it's way, there will be extremely tight gun laws leaving more people defenseless. Take away the police and what you have is a bloodbath

No one on the left wants to ban all guns nor abolish the police.

San Lumen wrote:

Romextly wrote:Of course we need the police. Soon, if the left has it's way, there will be extremely tight gun laws leaving more people defenseless. Take away the police and what you have is a bloodbath

No one on the left wants to ban all guns nor abolish the police.

Even if that was true, the anti police leftists would be anarchists and the anti gun ones statists

San Lumen wrote:

Romextly wrote:Of course we need the police. Soon, if the left has it's way, there will be extremely tight gun laws leaving more people defenseless. Take away the police and what you have is a bloodbath

No one on the left wants to ban all guns nor abolish the police.

I said tight gun laws. To restrict access to guns such as the Ar-15 and by Semi autos. And On taking away the police I was responding to the OP. And actually there are people on the left who want to abolish the police. There is aalso people on the right

Romextly wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
No one on the left wants to ban all guns nor abolish the police.

I said tight gun laws. To restrict access to guns such as the Ar-15 and by Semi autos. And On taking away the police I was responding to the OP. And actually there are people on the left who want to abolish the police. There is aalso people on the right

That's a small minority.

Bombadil wrote:

Dangine wrote:I know problems with the police vary from country to country. What are the problems with the police in Japan? Is it better or worse than we have it in the U.S and is there a particular issue that Japan faces with police that we don't?

One thing I've noticed, certainly with reactions to the pandemic, is that government and people go hand in hand. It's like prisons, if every prisoner combined to overthrow a prison they would succeed. Similar with government, a basic observance of social community is required. So in Taiwan, for example, you had sensible government measures and a sensible people, similar for most nations that dealt well with the pandemic. For HK, dumb ass government but cautious people, in a sense the actions of the people precede the nature of the government (at least in a democratic society..).

So it's difficult to create solutions for policing if you don't have a civil minded population. Comparing Japan to, say, the US in terms of police is not particularly easy given they're faced with very different societal issues.

So the question is about how we address societal issues better that reduce anti-social behaviour as opposed to just 'how do we reform the police?'.

Turn off Fox News and stop giving out pills like candy to every spoiled white brat who whines at a doctor?

We'd still need police, but it probably would make things calmer.

Romextly wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
No one on the left wants to ban all guns nor abolish the police.

I said tight gun laws. To restrict access to guns such as the Ar-15 and by Semi autos. And On taking away the police I was responding to the OP. And actually there are people on the left who want to abolish the police. There is aalso people on the right

Who the fuck would need an AR-15 to defend themself?

Disgraces wrote:

Romextly wrote:I said tight gun laws. To restrict access to guns such as the Ar-15 and by Semi autos. And On taking away the police I was responding to the OP. And actually there are people on the left who want to abolish the police. There is aalso people on the right

Who the fuck would need an AR-15 to defend themself?

You dont.