|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 2, 2024 3:52:08 GMT -5
Well that’s the kind of approach that gets people you drank too much and tried to use their keys to get into the house next door, or black children who just knock killed.
If you get through a locked door and an alarm that goes off as soon as the door is opened and still keep coming that's malice, not an accident.
But why do we need to replace such an utterly useless institution? From 2022-2023 less than 6% of crimes in the UK even resulted in charges. Cops are great at protecting the interests of the owner class and keeping undesirable minorities in their place but if all cops disappeared overnight and were not replaced at all the average person would barely notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Mar 2, 2024 8:53:19 GMT -5
There is a big difference between poor performance and a total absence of law enforcement. I think the average person will most certainly notice the absence of a police force.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Mar 2, 2024 10:03:32 GMT -5
Well that’s the kind of approach that gets people you drank too much and tried to use their keys to get into the house next door, or black children who just knock killed.
If you get through a locked door and an alarm that goes off as soon as the door is opened and still keep coming that's malice, not an accident.
The problem arises when people don't even need to do that. There have been several cases lately of people being shot for turning into the wrong driveway or knocking on a door for directions or accidentally having the wrong address... |
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Mar 2, 2024 12:41:14 GMT -5
Well that’s the kind of approach that gets people you drank too much and tried to use their keys to get into the house next door, or black children who just knock killed.
If you get through a locked door and an alarm that goes off as soon as the door is opened and still keep coming that's malice, not an accident.
But why do we need to replace such an utterly useless institution? From 2022-2023 less than 6% of crimes in the UK even resulted in charges. Cops are great at protecting the interests of the owner class and keeping undesirable minorities in their place but if all cops disappeared overnight and were not replaced at all the average person would barely notice.
Do you want The Purge? Because that’s how you get The Purge. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 2, 2024 16:01:11 GMT -5
But why do we need to replace such an utterly useless institution? From 2022-2023 less than 6% of crimes in the UK even resulted in charges. Cops are great at protecting the interests of the owner class and keeping undesirable minorities in their place but if all cops disappeared overnight and were not replaced at all the average person would barely notice.
Because you can't rely on people to be good people, and whilst the charge rate is pretty low just think what would happen to crime if there was no enforcement at all.
6% is absymal, but it's a side effect of the police budgets being cut to the bone by austerity.
I can stand behind the defund the police thing in as much as there's often better things we can do with money and resources to reduce crime than give it to the cops - dealing with poverty, youth outreach and activity programs, mental health services and so on.
In the UK there are definitely some bent cops, that's not up for debate, but the general feel is that most of them are pretty reasonable competent people. Most of my interactions with them have been pretty decent, even the time I got arrested and taken home in a police car I certainly didn't feel in any danger from the cops (though my parents was a different matter).
The ones I know personally have a pretty dry sense of humour, but that's often a coping mechanism for dealing with some pretty grim stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 2, 2024 16:45:20 GMT -5
There is a big difference between poor performance and a total absence of law enforcement. I think the average person will most certainly notice the absence of a police force. Is there really a difference? The cops won't arrive in time if you're attacked, the cops almost certainly won't get your stuff back if you're robbed, and even if you're murdered it's a coin flip as to whether the cops will manage to arrest a suspect. And we have studies showing that the threat of punishment doesn't really deter crime. I'm sure people would notice the absence of the illusion of a police force but the effective and helpful police force they believe is keeping them safe doesn't really exist. Real cops are so ineffective at anything other than keeping undesirable minorities in their place that in practical terms I doubt the average person would notice at all if they disappeared without replacement.
The problem arises when people don't even need to do that. There have been several cases lately of people being shot for turning into the wrong driveway or knocking on a door for directions or accidentally having the wrong address... Aside from the fact that these cases are murder, not legitimate self defense, and at least one of the murderers was just convicted, is this really such a common event that it outweighs all the cases where the cops murder someone for absurd reasons? In purely utilitarian terms it's better to have a few additional cases of people being murdered in absurd "self defense" situations than a greater number of people murdered by cops.
Do you want The Purge? Because that’s how you get The Purge. I don't think it is. We know the threat of punishment doesn't really deter crime, the absence of cops doesn't mean everyone is now a helpless victim, and most people don't actually want to commit any serious crimes. And amusingly even in The Purge the violence only started once the state provoked it, when it was simply the absence of cops people just stayed home and waited for normal services to return. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Mar 2, 2024 19:23:27 GMT -5
Aside from the fact that these cases are murder, not legitimate self defense, and at least one of the murderers was just convicted, is this really such a common event that it outweighs all the cases where the cops murder someone for absurd reasons? In purely utilitarian terms it's better to have a few additional cases of people being murdered in absurd "self defense" situations than a greater number of people murdered by Get rid of the police and any enforcement and you'll have this happen a lot more frequently. Especially as more people become more afraid of others and lash out in proactive self-defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 2, 2024 20:31:36 GMT -5
Because you can't rely on people to be good people, and whilst the charge rate is pretty low just think what would happen to crime if there was no enforcement at all.
I don't think it would make much difference at all, at least if we exclude victimless "crimes" like drug possession that exist purely to give the state a reason to target undesirable minorities. We know that the threat of punishment does little to deter crime (which is why harsh sentences are about revenge, not deterrence) so why would expect to see a significant effect on crime if a minimal chance of getting caught turned into zero chance? If anything we'd expect to see less crime if we abolished the police and put those resources into social programs to mitigate poverty and the desperation that drives people to crime.
No, it's a direct effect of cops being mercenaries whose primary job is to keep undesirable minorities in their place. Police budgets in the US are obscenely high and the rate of crimes being solved is still pathetic. Get rid of the police and any enforcement and you'll have this happen a lot more frequently. Especially as more people become more afraid of others and lash out in proactive self-defense. I don't think this is true at all. Remember, police are already worthless for defending you. Even if we assume the cops are paragons of moral virtue who are fully committed to defending the innocent at all costs almost any situation where defending yourself is required will be resolved one way or another by the time a cop can get to you. Unless you have the sheer blind luck to be attacked right next to a cop you're on your own. Abolishing the police doesn't change anything unless you've never stopped to think about defending yourself. Also, like I said, even if there's an increase in unjustified "self defense" murders it may very well be less than the number of people who are murdered by cops. If 10 more people die from overly-aggressive "self defense" but 100 people are not murdered by cops then that's a clear win for society. |
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Mar 2, 2024 21:56:45 GMT -5
If you got rid of police, I suspect date rape and similar crimes would escalate, or retributive violence would. Jail seems like the best way to stop them from continuing to offend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 2, 2024 22:40:16 GMT -5
If you got rid of police, I suspect date rape and similar crimes would escalate, or retributive violence would. Jail seems like the best way to stop them from continuing to offend.
I think this is a case where how we think things should work and how they do work are two very different things. It seems like jail is good for preventing rapists from committing further rapes but in reality police are already horrifyingly ineffective at dealing with rape cases. Conviction rates are extremely low, we routinely see stories of cops not bothering to take or process evidence, and the system often seems more concerned with establishing why the victim deserved to be raped than prosecuting the rapist. Even when a rapist is convicted sentences are often short at best, after which they're out of jail and free to resume their crimes. So if police are already doing hardly anything to prevent rape then why would we expect rates to increase?
Also, there's again the fact that we know punishment has very little deterrent effect and criminals usually either believe they won't get caught or are desperate enough to not care. The thing keeping rates of date rape from increasing isn't the existence of cops, it's the fact that most people aren't rapists.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 927
|
Post by mdgv2 on Mar 3, 2024 7:13:58 GMT -5
There’s also an often overlooked impact of the Tories slashing Police funding to the bone. The loss of expertise and experience.
There was a fascinating phone-in on James O’Brien’s radio show in that regard. I’ve tried to find it on YouTube but no luck.
In essence the caller was a former Police detective, who explained too many senior officers were laid off, leaving nobody to train incoming officers in the subtler side of policing, like effective questioning and that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 4, 2024 7:05:00 GMT -5
I firmly believe that some kind of enforcement mechanism(s) are needed to sustain a fair society and to prevent bad actors from taking over. Even commons resources needed enforcement mechanisms to survive people trying to monopolise them and all surviving commons resources have these. For the same reason I think some kind of military is a necessity (in this case to defend against aggressive state bad actors).
However, I definitely agree that our current conception of police is ineffective at sustaining a fair society and is largely only effective at sustaining the status quo of wide inequality and hording of private property by the few. There are fundamental issues with centralising so much state-sanctioned power into one group that increasing accountability can only address so far IMO. Equally, I do not think that simply resorting to everyone carrying weapons is a good replacement either- widespread personal carry was the norm in, say, late medieval and early modern Europe and didn't prevent inequality and exploitation but did come with frequent street violence.
I do actually agree that the police should be abolished, but I haven't personally encountered an acceptable alternative yet. Therefore, I think improving the existing police is a reasonable harm-reduction strategy until a good alternative can be crafted and made sufficiently popular. Of course, I fully support reducing the root causes of most crime in the first instance- addressing poverty and inequality. Doing this essentially eliminates the majority of crime (crimes of desperation) and leaves the few truly-malicious actors.
Having said that, if some organisation is required to enact enforcement mechanisms, and it turns out a police force is the best way to do that despite its inherent flaws, then that may be a trade-off that is worth it if those enforcement mechanisms support the many over the few (such as protecting common resources). That certainly isn't the case now, but it could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 4, 2024 7:07:36 GMT -5
Oh, we could also "reduce crime" by removing laws that criminalise stuff that isn't actually harmful... Things like drug use and arguably the entire IP system (this needs a root-and-branch overhaul that is not going to happen easily whilst it makes the rich so much money). Big fan of copyleft and free knowledge distribution myself.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 927
|
Post by mdgv2 on Mar 4, 2024 7:15:59 GMT -5
To help focus the discussions, perhaps we should consider what we expect from the Police? I’ll kick off with a non-exhaustive list.
1. Officers visible on the beat. Not a Bobby on every street corner, but having a patrolled patch. This serves as a deterrent to low level crime.
2. Detecting and investigating organised crime. This is how you reduce overall crime. The drug dealers, growers and importers. People traffickers. Fraud rings. SA rings. The criminal gangs that each in their own way pour misery upon the poor and vulnerable
3. To assist, outreach and intervention programmes. These were cut thanks to austerity, despite a proven record of decreasing crime, as fewer vulnerable youths are roped in.
4. Drug Rehabilitation. Contrary to the right wing press’ insistence, this works. Not 100% of the time, but often enough to reduce the cycle of abuse. This in turn helps prevent relatively low level crime, from mugging and shoplifting to burglary, as fewer addicts means fewer people turning to crime to feed their addiction.
5. Even handedness. ‘Member when the lavvies in Parliament tested positive for cocaine? How about investigating that, and exposing the users. How can we take any programme or effort to counter drug abuse seriously when those in Parliament may be users themselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 4, 2024 7:17:39 GMT -5
Oh another point that I think is quite alien to a lot of US citizens. For all its faults (which are many), there is a reasonable and legally-supported expectation of protection by the police in the UK.
If I was attacked in front of an officer, I would expect the officer to intervene at personal risk without a firearm, even if the attacker was armed. It would be surprising if they didn't. It happens even with off-duty officers out of uniform. The police are expected to and do risk their lives to actually interpose themselves between violence and the public. Breaking up street violence is probably where a traditional police force can be most effective at preventing and reducing crime. It is also very visible, so I suspect this is where a lot of support for the police comes from.
I think most countries would consider this the bare minimum for the police, but there you go. Also, I am not arguing that this actually outweighs the harm the police causes on the whole, but there are genuine benefits in a way that is largely absent in the US where officers neither have to protect nor serve the public.
|
|
