|
Post by redchimera on Apr 20, 2024 4:58:35 GMT -5
The crime solving success rate was brought up by yourself so I don't feel it's a strawman. But we can replace the words "has a low 'crime solving' success rate" with "are not fit for purpose" and the point still stands. Qualitatively better oversight is a better replacement to poor oversight. not no oversight.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 20, 2024 5:17:23 GMT -5
The crime solving success rate was brought up by yourself so I don't feel it's a strawman. But we can replace the words "has a low 'crime solving' success rate" with "are not fit for purpose" and the point still stands. Qualitatively better oversight is a better replacement to poor oversight. not no oversight. It's a straw man because you've presented the low success rate as my sole argument for abolishing the police entirely rather than reforming them. The actual argument is that cops are actively harmful to society, not merely less useful than I want them to be. Their ineffectiveness is merely one part of that, a lack of positive to balance against the overwhelming harm they cause. To give you an analogy: cops are not a fire department that doesn't arrive in time to save your house from burning down, they're a fire department that shows up with a tanker truck full of gasoline and lights the entire neighborhood on fire because arson is fun.
And, again, better oversight is wishful thinking in the US. This is not "a few bad apples" that can be weeded out by better oversight. Cops are irredeemably and institutionally corrupt, at every level of their existence, and actively resist all attempts at oversight with near-total unity and the backing of the most powerful union in the US. Before any meaningful reform can happen the entire system must be dismantled and stripped of that power. Otherwise oversight means nothing more than "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" and no meaningful change will ever happen.
|
|