Conflict erupts at Minneapolis, L.A. protests over George Floyd death

[loomer]

The NYTimes article seem to think just social programs will make things go away and that because cops mostly deal with routine issues they aren't needed which is asinine. Some form of police are always going to be necessary because people are imperfect. Other countries have managed to make better forms of policing without abolishing them. I can't help but see the idea of getting rid of police as a group and department as a pipe dream. As it currently stands the US is definitely going to need to abolish what it has but it can be rebuilt afterwards in a less corrupt form

So, that doesn't actually answer my question. Do you think that policing is the only viable model of law enforcement?

I believe that to some degree it will always be needed despite what idealists would like to think. It can be reformed but getting rid of it is NEVER going to work.

Okay. So why were we able to have law enforcement prior to the advent of police forces?

[Darth Yan]

Police forces always existed (night watchs) even in different forms; it was less centralized but it's always been there. And even those smaller methods could often lack effectiveness, which is why larger ones evolved.

As stands the police need to be abolished and they can definitely be scaled back. But I don't think completely getting ride of them or prisons is going to work.

[loomer]

Police forces always existed (night watchs) even in different forms; it was less centralized but it's always been there. And even those smaller methods could often lack effectiveness, which is why larger ones evolved.

As stands the police need to be abolished and they can definitely be scaled back. But I don't think completely getting ride of them or prisons is going to work.

You're fundamentally incorrect. Police forces as such have not always existed - they are a distinct product of the modern era, quite radically distinct from almost every pre-modern precursor, and there have been plenty of societies with absolutely no analogue to them. You're taking their existence as a given when it really isn't.

[Darth Yan]

Those pre modern precursors existed in smaller societies. In essence they were rendered obsolete

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-h ... ing-974587

And countries like Germany have police forces that aren’t just violent thugs. The UK cops aren’t allowed to carry guns which cuts down on needless shootings.

I don’t think going back to those small informal groups of policing is really practical. You can definitely cut things down by removing causes of social ills, or by expanding the training of psychologists and having other more qualified people get involved rather than just foisting it on the cops.

Should the police be replaced? Yes. Will the need for police ever be eliminated? No and anyone who says so is an idiot

[Darth Yan]

As is the system needs overhaul and you have to abolish first. But given how large the human population simple small neighborhood watches aren’t going to cut it

[loomer]

Those pre modern precursors existed in smaller societies. In essence they were rendered obsolete

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-h ... ing-974587

And countries like Germany have police forces that aren’t just violent thugs. The UK cops aren’t allowed to carry guns which cuts down on needless shootings.

I don’t think going back to those small informal groups of policing is really practical. You can definitely cut things down by removing causes of social ills, or by expanding the training of psychologists and having other more qualified people get involved rather than just foisting it on the cops.

Should the police be replaced? Yes. Will the need for police ever be eliminated? No and anyone who says so is an idiot

You keep saying 'anyone who says so is an idiot', but you aren't actually demonstrating why (and, while we're calling people idiots, using that link as authoritative is actually intensely stupid, especially in conversation with a legal theorist and historian who focuses on Indigenous legal matters and pre-modern legal codes, especially those of the early Medieval Germanic peoples. Can you guess why?) You're assuming it's the case because you're starting from the standpoint that the police are fundamentally necessary. So I'm going to issue you a simple challenge: Prove that modern policing is the only possible form law enforcement can take in a modern society. If, as you say, police and prison abolitionists like Davis, Vitale, or Mitford are idiots, you should be able to effectively and easily refute their arguments, right?

[Darth Yan]

I already agreed that as is the current system of policing needs to go and that if policing is to stay there will need to be an overhaul.

HOWEVER

1.) Society is larger than before. Small isolated groups of community watch aren’t going to cut it anymore.

2.) the abolitionists you cite make fair points (a lot of the jobs the police do would be better handled by other professionals, and addressing the root causes of crime would reduce the overall amount of crime). However that doesn’t change that

3.) While attacking root causes of crime (such as poverty, lack of opportunity and education) will certainly cause it to decrease violent crimes and even crimes like theft are never going to go away. People are flawed and no matter what social programs you have people will slip through the cracks or want someone else’s property. Many crimes throughout history have been committed by wealthy people with plenty of access and opportunity. There are also people who are just assholes or make bad choices regardless of circumstances

4.) While restorative justice has virtues there are some things it just can’t fix (Rape, murder).

In short I do think that policing AS IT STANDS should be done away with and that a lot of the suggestions abolitionists make can and should be put into practice.

What I AM saying is that some form of policing is going to be necessary in SOME form or other even if it is different. Even Vitale mentions that in the future there should be DISCUSSION about the role police have.

In short I agree that a lot of the ideas abolitionists have are good ones. But I cannot wrap my head around the idea that prisons and police forces will be rendered completely obsolete. Such ideas only work if you think humans will jettison the flaws we’ve had since the time when the first modern humans were born in Africa

[loomer]

I already agreed that as is the current system of policing needs to go and that if policing is to stay there will need to be an overhaul.

HOWEVER

1.) Society is larger than before. Small isolated groups of community watch aren’t going to cut it anymore.

Okay. So why does this mean that police forces are the answer to a larger society?

2.) the abolitionists you cite make fair points (a lot of the jobs the police do would be better handled by other professionals, and addressing the root causes of crime would reduce the overall amount of crime). However that doesn’t change that

3.) While attacking root causes of crime (such as poverty, lack of opportunity and education) will certainly cause it to decrease violent crimes and even crimes like theft are never going to go away. People are flawed and no matter what social programs you have people will slip through the cracks or want someone else’s property. Many crimes throughout history have been committed by wealthy people with plenty of access and opportunity. There are also people who are just assholes or make bad choices regardless of circumstances

Okay. So how does the modern police force offer a better way of dealing with these issues than any other possible model?

4.) While restorative justice has virtues there are some things it just can’t fix (Rape, murder).

So how do you fix rape or murder? Does the modern approach to policing perform adequately to fix these issues? Why can't reconciliatory and other alternative forms of justice fix them?

In short I do think that policing AS IT STANDS should be done away with and that a lot of the suggestions abolitionists make can and should be put into practice.

What I AM saying is that some form of policing is going to be necessary in SOME form or other even if it is different. Even Vitale mentions that in the future there should be DISCUSSION about the role police have.

Vitale is a moderate, yes. However, again, you seem to be confusing 'policing' with the possibility of any and all law enforcement.

In short I agree that a lot of the ideas abolitionists have are good ones. But I cannot wrap my head around the idea that prisons and police forces will be rendered completely obsolete. Such ideas only work if you think humans will jettison the flaws we’ve had since the time when the first modern humans were born in Africa

Okay. So, your position remains that modern police forces are the only workable way to address these issues and that prisons work. Explain why and how, rather than just saying 'I'm not convinced'.

[Darth Yan]

Because restorative justice works mainly if the perpetrator is remorseful or acted out of desperation. Rape is always about domination and control, and murders that are premeditated are often done with cold intent and sociopathy behind them. In those situations the perp would either be insincere or in the case of rapists take the chance to mock the victims. For such people prison is the only way, though even with prisons I would emphasize rehabilitation (the original model of the chino institute for men is a great example that tried for rehabilitation before the tough on crime era ruined it) for those who could be

The other models also presume that getting rid of poverty and lack of opportunity will completely eliminate the problem rather than merely reduce them. Some people are to put it bluntly just assholes and will always be assholes.

Also note that I never denied that other methods have value. The idea of increasing access to mental health care is a good idea that would definitely help. My issue is that some people are bad enough that even if it isn’t the sprawling military force of today some policing is going to be needed. The size of the population makes small groups of law enforcement impractical

Angela Davis and the abolitionists are basically acting as if getting rid of poverty will cause crime to go away and they’re only half right.

[loomer]

Because restorative justice works mainly if the perpetrator is remorseful or acted out of desperation. Rape is always about domination and control, and murders that are premeditated are often done with cold intent and sociopathy behind them. In those situations the perp would either be insincere or in the case of rapists take the chance to mock the victims. For such people prison is the only way, though even with prisons I would emphasize rehabilitation (the original model of the chino institute for men is a great example that tried for rehabilitation before the tough on crime era ruined it) for those who could be

And how do you square this with the sizeable body of feminist literature, much of it written by the victims of sexual assault and rape, advocating for the abolition of prisons and a focus on rehabilitative, reconciliatory, and restorative justice? Can you demonstrate that the existence of police forces has had a significant impact in reducing the number of murders and rapes?

The other models also presume that getting rid of poverty and lack of opportunity will completely eliminate the problem rather than merely reduce them. Some people are to put it bluntly just assholes and will always be assholes.

Okay. But again, why is a police force the only way to deal with a handful of assholes?

Also note that I never denied that other methods have value.

No, you just declared abolitionists idiots and insisted we must always have prisons and police.

The idea of increasing access to mental health care is a good idea that would definitely help. My issue is that some people are bad enough that even if it isn’t the sprawling military force of today some policing is going to be needed.

Again, you're conflating any and all possibility of law enforcement with the idea of the police. Why are the police the only appropriate method to deal with the 'bad man' hypothesis?

The size of the population makes small groups of law enforcement impractical

Explain why, don't just repeat the point. Why is a large modern police force the only response to a large society?

Angela Davis and the abolitionists are basically acting as if getting rid of poverty will cause crime to go away and they’re only half right.

Have you actually read Davis?

[Zaune]

Okay. So why were we able to have law enforcement prior to the advent of police forces?

That law-enforcement generally took the form of either soldiers or the local landowner's hired thugs, whose quality of oversight and training were even more of a crapshoot than they are in the contemporary United States.

[loomer]

Okay. So why were we able to have law enforcement prior to the advent of police forces?

That law-enforcement generally took the form of either soldiers or the local landowner's hired thugs, whose quality of oversight and training were even more of a crapshoot than they are in the contemporary United States.

It's actually rather more complex than that. If we look strictly at Europe and Asia, we can get that as an overly broad approximation, but if our lens broadens out into pre-modern Australia, Oceania, Africa, and the Americas we get very different possibilities.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's actually rather more complex than that. If we look strictly at Europe and Asia, we can get that as an overly broad approximation, but if our lens broadens out into pre-modern Australia, Oceania, Africa, and the Americas we get very different possibilities.

Any recommended reading on the subject? Or even just the names of authors or search terms I could use to find some? Through Google I am having a hard time finding anything that isn't very specifically about the development of modern police in France and England.

[loomer]

It's actually rather more complex than that. If we look strictly at Europe and Asia, we can get that as an overly broad approximation, but if our lens broadens out into pre-modern Australia, Oceania, Africa, and the Americas we get very different possibilities.

Any recommended reading on the subject? Or even just the names of authors or search terms I could use to find some? Through Google I am having a hard time finding anything that isn't very specifically about the development of modern police in France and England.

Sure thing. This is just off the top of my head - if you like I can have a proper dig around tomorrow for you through my library.

On Europe and the oversimplification of 'before police, it was just the wealthy with thugs or soldiers': If you're curious about the Icelandic situation (which you should be - it was, afterall, a pseudo-democratic near-government-free nation with an intricate legal culture. It's one we might reasonably categorize as a hybrid system in which law enforcement could be had either by purely legal processes or by the combination of legal processes with the pressure available to landholders), you can't go wrong with William Ian Miller. Try Timothy Jones for the role outlawry played as both a tool of essentially crowd-sourced law enforcement (which is how it's mostly been handled before the creation of modern police forces) and as a cultural tool used to help create compliance with the law as an idea. You'll also find some good stuff looking into guild law enforcement and in Law and the Illicit in Medieval Europe. For early colonizer America well before it had the police or the organized slave patrols, check out Elaine Crane.

For stuff outside of the Eurasian context, with a focus on Indigenous models, the most helpful keywords will be 'traditional law', 'customary law', and 'Indigenous (or the name of the specific group) jurisprudence (of <x>)', though you'll get stuff dealing with modern jurisprudence dealing with Indigenous peoples that way - and as you've no doubt already found you'll get a lot of stuff using law enforcement synonymously with police or pointing to police stations. 'Dispute resolution in <x>' is also helpful because there's been a tendency to describe pre-colonization legal cultures in terms that minimize their legitimacy as legal orders, winding up with things like restorative justice approaches being described as 'dispute resolution' rather than 'criminal justice'. Similarly, a lot of it is hidden in more general ethnographies. A very good overview for some American approaches is Carol A. Hand, Judith Hankes & Toni House (2012) Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system, Contemporary Justice Review, 15:4, 449-467; you might also try Rennard Strickland, though I'm not sure how his work holds up (that said, there's still plenty of value even in some very outdated stuff that hasn't keep up with theories of crime and punishment.) On the African stuff I'm not terribly well versed in the literature and am mostly reliant on conversations I had with Cormac Cullinan (and his knowledge was built primarily on speaking with anthropologists and elders in South Africa in turn), which are unfortunately not something I can point people to, and in the Australian context the state of ongoing culture war over whether colonization was evil or not (Ron Howard narrating: it was) renders any single source difficult, but check out Pascoe and Blainey Geoffrey (note though that Geoffrey is one of the more reasonable defenders of colonization (insofar as he doesn't treat Aboriginal Australia as irredeemably savage like some if his comrades do) and his work is primarily general history with some outdated racial takes) in combination.

As a general strategy, 'customary law/tribal law/traditional law/justice in ancient/medieval/pre-colonization/early/whatever <x>' will work better as a search than 'policing in <x>' for areas that have had modern policing as well - but one of the big difficulties there is that a lot of people use the term 'policing' as a synonym for any and all law enforcement so you'll need to settle on a helpful definition of policing as we understand it in order to see if it actually fits if its used. You'll also have better odds if you have access to academic databases since a lot of the best info is tucked in obscure journals.

[Jub]

Because restorative justice works mainly if the perpetrator is remorseful or acted out of desperation. Rape is always about domination and control, and murders that are premeditated are often done with cold intent and sociopathy behind them. In those situations the perp would either be insincere or in the case of rapists take the chance to mock the victims. For such people prison is the only way, though even with prisons I would emphasize rehabilitation (the original model of the chino institute for men is a great example that tried for rehabilitation before the tough on crime era ruined it) for those who could be

The other models also presume that getting rid of poverty and lack of opportunity will completely eliminate the problem rather than merely reduce them. Some people are to put it bluntly just assholes and will always be assholes.

In the cases of the worst crimes - rape, murder, torture, human trafficking, long term abuse, etc. - can we even say that police have an effect on them at all? It seems to me that in many cases the police are ignorant of any wrongdoing, such as the cases of long term child abuse, kidnapping and repeated rape, etc., do the wrong thing arresting abused spouses for using force to escape an abusive relationship, or even complicit in forcing people fleeing abusive situations to return home as their abuser reported them as missing. Even in the case where the police do the right thing they can only act after the abuse or crime has happened in which case why do they need to be armed with anything more than a note pad, some police tap so the investigators can search the crime scene, and the training to provide needed emotional and medical support?

Are armed police needed for the rare case where there is violence or the threat of violence that lasts long enough for them to arrive on the scene and deescalate things? Do we need armed lawmen to enforce the return of stolen property or should we let poverty reduction solutions and state-sponsored insurance handle that? Please, state exactly the cases where armed police are consistently useful as I can think of very few.

Lastly, the reduction abolitionists seek to bring about should reduce the types of crime that armed police are needed for. Petty crime where the maximum sentence today would be a fine and/or community service can be solved by bylaw teams, property crime by insurance and restorative justice, financial crime by auditors and financial forensics, traffic issues such as speeding can use automated traffic cameras and bylaw enforcement until it is solved entire by automated cars. I just don't see which of their usual tasks we need police for and I don't see the current police as being the best tool for the jobs some form of armed response force usually accomplishes.

[Darth Yan]

Armed no. Even in the UK police don’t carry guns and they have a lower rate of needless killing and douchebaggery than the US. But some small form of patrol groups may be needed, if only for things like traffic violations or to take offenders into custody. And since we live in larger societies small militias aren’t going to cut it.

One of the reasons modern policing came about was because smaller informal groups weren’t cutting it in the 1800s when population boomed in large cities.

As for rape a large part of that is cultural stigma. Women aren’t believed in any level of society and it’s only now that things are changing. Changing that could help law enforcement take a more proactive stance on addressing it.

Finally some people will need to be contained and can’t be rehabilitated. Restorative justice definitely has a place but small incarceration will always endure if only to protect people from the Clarence Allens of the world

In short I believe in police REDUCTION. You can pull back on the police and lower the overall number of officers and circumstances they get involved in. But getting rid of all of them seems like a pipe dream

[Jub]

Armed no. Even in the UK police don’t carry guns and they have a lower rate of needless killing and douchebaggery than the US. But some small form of patrol groups may be needed, if only for things like traffic violations or to take offenders into custody. And since we live in larger societies small militias aren’t going to cut it.

You mean like bylaw officers who are distinct from police... I think I already mentioned them. Also, UK police are armed, they just don't have guns.

As for rape a large part of that is cultural stigma. Women aren’t believed in any level of society and it’s only now that things are changing. Changing that could help law enforcement take a more proactive stance on addressing it.

Are we going to go all Minority Report and have precrime arrest would-be rapists, or just have 100% surveillance coverage, including in people's homes, and have rocket pack equipped police fired from police stations ready to be anywhere within a minute?

Finally, some people will need to be contained and can’t be rehabilitated. Restorative justice definitely has a place but small incarceration will always endure if only to protect people from the Clarence Allens of the world

There are other solutions, some humane others less so. One that's a bit horrific, but no more so than a US Ultramax prison, is to put those serving life without parol into a medically induced coma. It's more reversible than the death penalty and more human than 20+ hours per day without human contact.

[Darth Yan]

Even with prisons solitary confinement shouldn’t be a thing. Scandinavian prisons emphasize rehabilitation programs and before it got butchered Chino Men’s was a prison that played down the incarceration angle (security was lax, combatative titles like “warden” and “guards” were replaced and they focused more on trying to rehabilitate.

I think abolitionists have good ideas but that there will always be some form of police. Mariam Kaba means well and Vitale is smart enough to realize we should debate the issue but people who think total abolition isn’t going to happen seem to be treated with sneering contempt

As for rape a more progressive attitude would prevent a backlog of rape kits and stop police from pressuring people into dropping cases

[Jub]

Even with prisons solitary confinement shouldn’t be a thing. Scandinavian prisons emphasize rehabilitation programs and before it got butchered Chino Men’s was a prison that played down the incarceration angle (security was lax, combatative titles like “warden” and “guards” were replaced and they focused more on trying to rehabilitate.

I think at a certain point these places aren't jails or prisons anymore, they've become psych wards for the criminally inclined, rehabilitation centers for an unwanted behavior, mandatory retreats that force you to confront your inner demons. They're staffed by different people and serving a different purpose so why reuse old terms that don't fit what they're trying to accomplish?

I think abolitionists have good ideas but that there will always be some form of police. Mariam Kaba means well and Vitale is smart enough to realize we should debate the issue but people who think total abolition isn’t going to happen seem to be treated with sneering contempt

Why do you link the concept of law enforcement (ideally replaced by the concept of community peacekeeping) with that of police? You can have one without the other.

As for rape a more progressive attitude would prevent a backlog of rape kits and stop police from pressuring people into dropping cases.

You could also fix that by ensuring that the average OBGYN and Planned Parenthood clinic has the ability to process a rape kit. Let people women can already trust help them through a very traumatic experience rather than making it a stressful trip to the hospital and then dealing with the police.

[Darth Yan]

Even with prisons solitary confinement shouldn’t be a thing. Scandinavian prisons emphasize rehabilitation programs and before it got butchered Chino Men’s was a prison that played down the incarceration angle (security was lax, combatative titles like “warden” and “guards” were replaced and they focused more on trying to rehabilitate.

I think at a certain point these places aren't jails or prisons anymore, they've become psych wards for the criminally inclined, rehabilitation centers for an unwanted behavior, mandatory retreats that force you to confront your inner demons. They're staffed by different people and serving a different purpose so why reuse old terms that don't fit what they're trying to accomplish?

I think abolitionists have good ideas but that there will always be some form of police. Mariam Kaba means well and Vitale is smart enough to realize we should debate the issue but people who think total abolition isn’t going to happen seem to be treated with sneering contempt

Why do you link the concept of law enforcement (ideally replaced by the concept of community peacekeeping) with that of police? You can have one without the other.

As for rape a more progressive attitude would prevent a backlog of rape kits and stop police from pressuring people into dropping cases.

You could also fix that by ensuring that the average OBGYN and Planned Parenthood clinic has the ability to process a rape kit. Let people women can already trust help them through a very traumatic experience rather than making it a stressful trip to the hospital and then dealing with the police.

Community peacekeeping has it's own problems and inevitably some people are just going to be assholes regardless. One of the reasons modern policing rose was because the increase in population made small scale groups utterly impractical. Darth Wong pointed out that most of the crimes throughout history were perpetrated by the WEALTHY not the poor. And while truly evil monsters like Clarence Ray Allen and Marc O'Leary are far and few between they DO exist so some form of containment will have to exist for those fuckers; some people really ARE beyond rehabilitation.

[Jub]

[T]ruly evil monsters like Clarence Ray Allen and Marc O'Leary are far and few between they DO exist so some form of containment will have to exist for those fuckers; some people really ARE beyond rehabilitation.

Why can't we keep those people in the same style of observation rooms we keep people on suicide watch in or make the hard choice to simply remove them from society in as humane a way as possible once it's determined that they definitely did the crime they are being sentenced for? Hell, a better society should lead to few people damaged beyond recovery and more insight into how best to rehab even the most violent repeat offenders.

[Darth Yan]

Even if there are fewer people some form of containment is necessary

[Formless]

One problem with the deterrence effect is that its not very easy to measure the deterrence effect, so its hard to know if it actually works or not. However, we can measure police effectiveness in terms of case clearance, i.e. the percentage of criminal cases that were opened and then "solved" (the suspect identified and arrested, you know the drill from there). From what you see on television you would expect it to be 100%; from common sense you would expect it to be lower than that, but by how much?

Well, in 2017 according to the FBI the case clearance rate for homicide in the US was 61.6%. And that number doesn't take into account missing persons who were murdered, but the body never found. You have a better than one third chance of getting away with murder in this country. Possibly as many as half of all murderers don't get caught. And that number is one of their better statistics. Assault cases also get cleared about half of the time, and the rest are left unsolved. Again, this is only for cases that were opened in the first place. Two thirds of robbers get away with it, and only 13.5% of burglary cases are solved. Its also an under reported crime. Rape is absolutely pitiful, since only one third of reported rapes are solved, and the crime is so under reported probably less than one in ten rapists will ever deal with law enforcement at all. Famously the court system is absolutely unjust towards victims of rape, which is why it is under reported in the first place. With so many criminals getting away with major crimes, both against persons and against property, its hard to take the deterrence effect of police seriously, since even supporters of the theory state that deterrence requires would-be criminals to believe that they will be caught and punished if they commit a crime. But even on a good year in the United States, the statistics don't lie. Law enforcement isn't working in this country.

[Darth Yan]

The over militarized approach isn’t working. Maybe clearance rates in other countries should be compared as well. I wonder how good Germany’s clearance rate is

[Formless]

Who cares about Germany? The numbers objectively suck! Even if they were comparable to Germany's numbers, that would be an indictment of German police, just as it is an indictment of US police.