Society Without Police?

[Heyo]

The issue is, "everyone" doesn't have the time or training or ability to do police work. No one should trust me to apprehend a dangerous criminal who is on the loose, for example.

That's why I think it wouldn't work now.

So how would it work on a practical level? Someone is breaking into my house. What do I do? Someone is driving dangerously on the road. Who do I call?

What did people do before there was police?
We are used to have police. Many of us wouldn't even intervene in an acute situation, because we don't see it as our duty. (And the police isn't very fond of having their work taken over by citizens.)
We'd need to change our mentality (and education) to have a society without police. Not impossible, but it would take decades during which a police is still necessary.
But getting a better police is still possible when the political will is there and it would take a few years.

 

[Left Coast]

There is really no reason why the numerous tasks that have congealed under the umbrella "police work" absolutely, positively have to all be done by a single organization with the same legal powers and the same attitude towards problem solving.

• Neighborhood disputes could be resolved by teams of specialized mediators trained in de-escalation techniques.

That's true, they probably could in many cases. What do these teams do when disputes cannot be mediated?

Drug crimes and mental health incidents should absolutely be responded to by social workers and psychologists who know how to deal with such cases.

On that I agree, unless the person has become violent/dangerous to others.

Petty criminals typically don't need to be handled by armed personnel, either, and so can be apprehended by trusted folk who then just send them over to be processed by the judicial system.

Depends on the petty criminal. All petty criminals won't go quietly when attempts to apprehend them are made. I've been told that police in a number of Western countries do not carry guns, so I can see that working, depending on how armed the population is. But they'd still need the training/skill to actually "apprehend" such people, which often requires use of some degree of force.

Fraud and other white collar crimes are already so distinct from regular police work that it would arguably make more sense to have a specialized organisation handling these cases, instead of conducting them under the umbrella of regular police work.

I'd be open to that idea, although again in that case they would just be police within a specialized area of law enforcement. So again, they would just be police by another name.

Homicide, violent and organized crime are probably the only areas where the notion of an organization of armed investigators would still have merit - but the former two categories constitute only a fraction of everyday police work, and in the latter case, regular police is arguably more likely to be in their pocket than to conduct serious investigations there.

In that case, the situation calls for reform of police then, rather than abolition.

 

[Stevicus]

Those things are true, although policing has earlier roots as well. Societies have needed people to enforce laws and protect their citizens from criminals for millennia. And again, I'm aware of no non-capitalist country that has no form of police force today.

I think the equivalent in the former USSR was called the "militia." The term "police" was viewed with negative connotations. But they were far more effective at maintaining order than anything we've seen in this country. I knew a guy from there who said that back in the day, if a person left their wallet in a bar or restaurant, they could expect to find it in the exact same spot it was left hours later. No one would dare touch it.

Now, that's what I call "crime control."

 

[Left Coast]

What did people do before there was police?

Before modern policing, law enforcement was carried out in a variety of ways, typically by the military as I understand it. Societies for millennia have had some way of protecting their citizenry and apprehending/incarcerating criminals. This has typically been done by some people specifically assigned that job.

We are used to have police. Many of us wouldn't even intervene in an acute situation, because we don't see it as our duty. (And the police isn't very fond of having their work taken over by citizens.)

Depending on the situation, I can see myself not intervening because I wouldn't know what to do or have the skill/ability to do it.

But getting a better police is still possible when the political will is there and it would take a few years.

On that I agree.

 

[Stevicus]

Before modern policing, law enforcement was carried out in a variety of ways, typically by the military as I understand it. Societies for millennia have had some way of protecting their citizenry and apprehending/incarcerating criminals. This has typically been done by some people specifically assigned that job.

Before the industrial era, most people lived in agrarian village societies where law enforcement was likely much simpler, albeit more primitive by today's standards. If someone was possessed by demons or allegedly practicing witchcraft, the local citizenry would know just what to do. The local prince or lord probably would have some guards or armed strong men to keep people in line.

Or, such as in the Old West, people might take the law into their own hands, form posses, lynch mobs, "trail justice." Maybe they might be led by a sheriff or marshal - or maybe just the best gunfighter. Personal disputes would be handled within the families, such as the Hatfields and McCoys. If the authorities really wanted to capture somebody, they'd put out wanted posters and offer rewards, and bounty hunters would go around, catching bad guys (dead or alive), and then collecting the reward.

 

[joe1776]

I don't think we need to get rid of the police. We just need to get rid of the lawyers.

I agree. I don't think that killing all the lawyers is necessary, although I understand that argument. i think we should simply give them some useful task.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

When they say "defund the police" what they are talking about is to re-allocate the city budget to prioritize social services that prevent crime in the first place, instead of giving huge budgets to police departments who just use it to buy military equipment.

Amen, brother! You've encapsulated the entire topic.

 

[Kooky]

Those things are true, although policing has earlier roots as well.

Yes, it has roots in the gendarmes of the French king, in the slave patrols that @Orbit mentioned, in the volunteer constabularies of 18th century Britain, and in the censors and spies of autocratic regimes.

But dedicated, professional organizations that concentrated guard duties, criminal investigation and the application of violence against massed civilians within a single institution have only existed for little more than two centuries.

Societies have needed people to enforce laws and protect their citizens from criminals for millennia. And again, I'm aware of no non-capitalist country that has no form of police force today.

Societies have managed just fine without a dedicated police force for millennia, too. In fact, civilized human society has managed to do without police organizations for far longer than police organizations have existed.

It seems plain to me that we do not strictly need a police in this exact form in order to enforce laws.

 

[Kooky]

That's true, they probably could in many cases. What do these teams do when disputes cannot be mediated?

If it's about stuff like noise complaints, a particularly well trained monkey might already be sufficiently equipped to handle the job of collecting fees.
Okay, that was mean - we shouldn't burden monkeys with such responsibility, even if they would probably enjoy it.

But on a more serious note, these things generally do not escalate to violence when a trained professional is on the spot - and conversely, shooty police generally does not handle the task of de-escalation very well, either.

On that I agree, unless the person has become violent/dangerous to others.

Even if - arguably, especially if - they are violent or dangerous, I would argue that regular police is not equipped for the job of handling a mentally unwell person, unless we want that person to be dead. People in mental health facilities manage to handle unstable people on a daily basis without lethal force, perhaps our hypothetical mental health response teams ought to take a page from their training. What do you think?

Depends on the petty criminal. All petty criminals won't go quietly when attempts to apprehend them are made. I've been told that police in a number of Western countries do not carry guns, so I can see that working, depending on how armed the population is. But they'd still need the training/skill to actually "apprehend" such people, which often requires use of some degree of force.

I'm pretty sure you don't need special training to make a citizen arrest, and that would be the extent of most such encounters.
Very few petty criminals would be violent, let alone armed.

I'd be open to that idea, although again in that case they would just be police within a specialized area of law enforcement. So again, they would just be police by another name.

I don't think there would be much policing going on in that department. White collar crime tends to call for investigators and people with specialized knowledge of the financial world, not shooty cops.

In that case, the situation calls for reform of police then, rather than abolition.

Can I ask why this particular choice of words is so important to your argument?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, it has roots in the gendarmes of the French king, in the slave patrols that @Orbit mentioned, in the volunteer constabularies of 18th century Britain, and in the censors and spies of autocratic regimes.

Actually it goes back even further than that, as I mentioned earlier:

Police - Wikipedia

But dedicated, professional organizations that concentrated guard duties, criminal investigation and the application of violence against massed civilians within a single institution have only existed for little more than two centuries.

Societies have managed just fine without a dedicated police force for millennia, too. In fact, civilized human society has managed to do without police organizations for far longer than police organizations have existed.

I guess it depends what "managed just fine" means. By that logic we also "managed just fine" without democracy, either. But I'm assuming you're a fan of democracy? As @Stevicus mentioned above, pre-modern policework involved an inconsistent patchwork of either civilian/vigilante justice or military law enforcement.

It seems plain to me that we do not strictly need a police in this exact form in order to enforce laws.

Again, I think "in this exact form" is precisely the weeds that I'm wanting to flesh out. In modern society, there's got to be some dedicated group of individuals responsible for law enforcement, up to and including application of force in apprehension/detention of criminals. If you don't want to call those people "police," that's fine but...a rose by any other name.

 

[Kooky]

In modern society, there's got to be some dedicated group of individuals responsible for law enforcement, up to and including application of force in apprehension/detention of criminals.

That's where I'm trying to drill down towards - the premise that our current institutions are axiomatic, with self evident utility that must not be questioned.
Just why do we need a dedicated police force? What, specifically, necessitates such an organization?

 

[Left Coast]

But on a more serious note, these things generally do not escalate to violence when a trained professional is on the spot - and conversely, shooty police generally does not handle the task of de-escalation very well, either.

That's true, although most noise complaints police respond to don't end up with anyone being shot.

Even if - arguably, especially if - they are violent or dangerous, I would argue that regular police is not equipped for the job of handling a mentally unwell person, unless we want that person to be dead. People in mental health facilities manage to handle unstable people on a daily basis without lethal force, perhaps our hypothetical mental health response teams ought to take a page from their training. What do you think?

Violent psychotic individuals who attempt to harm others in psychiatric hospitals, for example, are forcibly subdued and restrained through isolation, literal physical restraints, and involuntarily administered medication. It's not a particularly pretty picture.

That said, I do think trained mental health response teams would be a great adjunct or even replacement to police when it comes to many 5150 sorts of calls to police. And if we're going to make police do that kind of work, they should definitely require better training.

I'm pretty sure you don't need special training to make a citizen arrest, and that would be the extent of most such encounters.
Very few petty criminals would be violent, let alone armed.

Have you ever tried? I think you're overestimating how compliant people would be with a random civilian attempting to arrest them and take them to jail. Perhaps we run in different crowds, lol.

I don't think there would be much policing going on in that department. White collar crime tends to call for investigators and people with specialized knowledge of the financial world, not shooty cops.

That's true, although at some point such criminals do need to be arrested. Doesn't require a gun per se, but requires application of force.

Can I ask why this particular choice of words is so important to your argument?

Ironically, it is the argument of folks on the Left who insist on the choice of words that "reform" of police is not enough and police need to be "abolished" that motivated the thread. Can I ask why not having law enforcement officials be called "police" is so important to you? or do you agree with me that it's irrelevant what we call them...the work being done needs done by somebody?

 

[Left Coast]

That's where I'm trying to drill down towards - the premise that our current institutions are axiomatic, with self evident utility that must not be questioned.
Just why do we need a dedicated police force? What, specifically, necessitates such an organization?

It harkens back to the pragmatic questions I asked at the beginning...when someone is breaking into my house, what do I do? When someone is driving dangerously on the road, who do I call? It seems to me - and you're welcome to present a working system that contradicts this idea - that responding to such concerns of a population constitutes a full-time job that would best be handled by trained professionals who have training in how to address such situations, have authority to enforce law (including application of force if arrest is necessary), and so on.

So again - how would such an alternate system actually work?

 

[Isolde Schulz]

Not to be forgotten is the utopia the former DDR (East Germany) tried to employ via the Stasi. A consummate police state in which citizens were encouraged and rewarded to turn each other "in" for even minor infractions. It was 1984 for dubious decades. But even before then, came the idea that we essentially don't need passwords and padlocks if each is honorable.

 

[Augustus]

I don't see how society would function without such things. So if we abolish police, we're just going to have to replace them with people who do the same work and go by another name. Right?

I agree.

I live somewhere where people don't really trust the police to do anything to help them (at best) or actively think contacting the police will make things worse.

People who get caught committing crimes are lucky if they just get beaten senseless by neighbourhood folk, often the beating will be fatal, or they'll be set on fire or something similar (and that's just for petty crimes like theft).

Not to mention the fact that you may just be in the wrong place at the wrong time and, lacking due process, just cop a lynching by your own misfortune.

Or the organised crime gangs who 'protect' neighbourhoods and also provide a kind of social service where the state is lacking.

I'm guessing the people who are advocating 'citizen justice' live in wealthy Western nations with a rule of law that keeps them pretty much safe from harm. A police force has to be really bad before mob justice is preferable, exponentially worse than somewhere like America (which is still among the best in the world despite its many and obvious flaws).

It's a fantasy of people who are in a nice safe bubble.

 

[74x12]

I'm not advocating to get rid of the police, at least not immediately. But on who is going to do the work, that would be everyone. As the other name I'd suggest "citizen".

I'm sorry to say it rings of Orwellian style communism to me. So we'd all be snitching on each other?

 

[Stevicus]

I'm sorry to say it rings of Orwellian style communism to me. So we'd all be snitching on each other?

Isn't that pretty much how law enforcement works in the U.S. already? Every time there's a crime reported in the news, there's always the statement: "Police are asking if anyone knows about this to contact the police department." There's a local number that people can call to anonymously report crimes. Not to mention the crimes solved with the help of police informants.

 

[74x12]

Isn't that pretty much how law enforcement works in the U.S. already? Every time there's a crime reported in the news, there's always the statement: "Police are asking if anyone knows about this to contact the police department." There's a local number that people can call to anonymously report crimes. Not to mention the crimes solved with the help of police informants.

That's police operations for real crimes. What I mean is when we'll all be tattle tailing our neighbors for violating some lame ordinance or whatever. My neighbor used to much water on the lawn today. etc. etc. It's already happening; we don't need more to encourage this goody two shoes stuff.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

As a primitive example: I never lock my bicycle up coming and going. To this date, it's never been taken as someone else's property. Is the bike ugly (it is not), or shall I call the RCMP because I'm cross about it not being stolen?

 

[Kooky]

It harkens back to the pragmatic questions I asked at the beginning...when someone is breaking into my house, what do I do? When someone is driving dangerously on the road, who do I call? It seems to me - and you're welcome to present a working system that contradicts this idea - that responding to such concerns of a population constitutes a full-time job that would best be handled by trained professionals who have training in how to address such situations, have authority to enforce law (including application of force if arrest is necessary), and so on.

So again - how would such an alternate system actually work?

So we are back to assuming the police to be axiomatically necessary. What a disappointing outcome.