Society Without Police?

[Thief]

Some folks on the Left are calling for complete abolition of police. If that's your position, how would that actually work on a practical level? Would we have no job or position in society responsible for law enforcement? For apprehending criminals? For protecting victims of crime?

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?

take away their guns

the badge will not serve as shield

 

[Left Coast]

It would both require and strengthen a sense of community. Sadly, I see that dwindling in the moment. We have given away (or they were taken away) many tasks that were once understood as common duties where there is now a "public service". Sometimes for the better (because it is more equal due to stately or federal standards), sometimes for worse.
Ironically it is the criminals who still have sense of community. For a gang member "the 'hood" means something whereas for many others it's the place where ones bed sleeps.

I do agree we've lost a sense of community in many ways (that's the premise of the classic book Bowling Alone that examined the phenomenon as it was starting 20 years ago; not sure if you've read it). I think in part the Internet has created that separation. People are no longer interdependent on their immediate neighbors the way they used to be. If you want to have a date or a hookup, there's no need to go to a local bar; there's an app for that. If you want to sell something you own, you don't have to have a yard sale or ask friends and family nearby; you can post it on Ebay or Facebook marketplace or wherever. People don't chat with each other in public spaces as much; we're all head down in our smartphones. So with all that comes a loss of a feeling of social responsibility to our own local communities. And you're definitely on to something when it comes to the psychology of why people join gangs. No doubt all of that also makes the jobs of police harder.

 

[Left Coast]

take away their guns

the badge will not serve as shield

In some countries most police do not carry guns, because most civilians don't carry them either. In America, I can't see that being a viable option unless our society as a whole disarms.

 

[Thief]

let me add to that.......

they will see the danger.....and just NOT answer the call

this is America
not likely I will disarm

(not that .....I......would be a danger)

 

[Stevicus]

It would both require and strengthen a sense of community. Sadly, I see that dwindling in the moment. We have given away (or they were taken away) many tasks that were once understood as common duties where there is now a "public service". Sometimes for the better (because it is more equal due to stately or federal standards), sometimes for worse.
Ironically it is the criminals who still have sense of community. For a gang member "the 'hood" means something whereas for many others it's the place where ones bed sleeps.

Some of it also seems to be cultural to some degree. Americans have had a love/hate relationship with law enforcement, at least at various times. Some of it may be political, where there are those who might be okay with local law enforcement, yet resent and resist it at the federal level, especially when it comes to revenuers and the Bureau of Land Management.

Some outlaws have achieved a certain notoriety, with some even viewing them as "heroes" or at least viewed somewhat sympathetically, such as Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde. Even mobsters have enjoyed a certain degree of fame in popular culture, as well as portrayed in fiction. There are also those who are attracted by the gang cultures of the cities. Of course, the War on Drugs has also created a certain "us vs. them" mentality among those who might indulge on occasion, as well as led to underground economy and sub-culture which can also be very much anti-police and anti-government. I knew a guy who said he would never be friends with anyone who had the power of arrest.

Another example might also be in some more light-hearted movies which feature speeding and being chased by police, like Smokey and the Bandit or Cannonball Run. White Lightning is another favorite, although the line between "outlaw" and "cop" was a bit blurred in that one. The Blues Brothers was another one where the cops were portrayed as complete buffoons.

 

[Augustus]

"Bad apples" are easier to get rid of. You don't have to fire them, just don't call them again.
And as those "deputies" are many, from the community and have no privileges like "qualified immunity", there isn't going to be the same bunker mentality as with the cops now.

Who chooses not to call them? You will have to have some organised force with a central hub and its management will choose.

Also getting quality volunteers to risk their own lives apprehending dangerous criminals while also taking the risk that they will be the ones who end up in front of the judge because they arrested the wrong guy, used excessive force, or infringed someone else's rights might be hard.

Should they be allowed guns? Do they just turn up with a baseball bat? Unarmed?

An accountant and a marketing executive trying to arrest a crew of hardened gangsters armed to the teeth isn't exactly going to be met with peaceful acquiescence.

Those are all good reasons for volunteers. You can have specialists you only call when needed. Less training for a single person but probably more intensive.
Corruption is less probable when you don't have a dedicated job but are only called when needed and there are a few others who also do the same job.

Which members of the community are specialists in arresting terrorists and armed gangsters? Where are they getting their multi-million dollar equipment sets from? Can anyone just turn up and ask to borrow the town's bomb disposal robot? Who is being held to account if they get it wrong and many people get killed?

Which members of the public are experts in crime scene forensics for rapes and murders? Where are they getting their lab and gear from? Who is being held to account if they mess it up if mass killers and serial rapists get off the hook?

 

[Isolde Schulz]

I don't really see the problem? We are not argueing that democracy is axiomatically the only possible way to organize human society -. we know for a fact that other forms of government are not only possible but have been the norm throughout history. What democracy has been going for is that it is, arguably, the best form of government if people are to participate in the political decisionmaking process - which is not a claim that deals with verifiable fact, but hypotheticals and, arguably, moral stances.

But the argument I was responding to was not that the police, in its modern form, was the best possible way to go about enforcing laws, but that police is a necessary component of governance and has therefore always existed in some form or another - an empirical claim that can be fact checked, and which, in my humble opinion, is not borne out by the historical record at all, at least not if we are being precise with our definitions and aren't operating under the premise that policing is axiomatic to a civilized society.

Certain laws eventually become redundant depending on the acuity and complexity of a supposedly evolved society. To gather cobwebs in an archive. Those that remain are to be enforced until also made redundant, depending on context. Many police are oblivious to the pattern, and would never admit that anarchy would put them out of business.

 

[Heyo]

I do agree we've lost a sense of community in many ways (that's the premise of the classic book Bowling Alone that examined the phenomenon as it was starting 20 years ago; not sure if you've read it).

No, I haven't. (But I'm used to find that others have expressed my ideas and often better than I could.)

I think in part the Internet has created that separation.

The internet was touted as the "global village" in the 90s. And in a way it is that people live more in that virtual village than the real one. I surely do.

 

[Heyo]

The Blues Brothers was another one where the cops were portrayed as complete buffoons.

The Blues Brothers were absolutely justified in their high-jinks as they were on a mission from god.

 

[Heyo]

Who chooses not to call them? You will have to have some organised force with a central hub and its management will choose.

The dispatcher will choose - who might be a volunteer.

Also getting quality volunteers to risk their own lives apprehending dangerous criminals while also taking the risk that they will be the ones who end up in front of the judge because they arrested the wrong guy, used excessive force, or infringed someone else's rights might be hard.

And that would be one of the last tasks I'd hand over to volunteers. But I guess there will be qualified ex military people willing to do it.

Should they be allowed guns? Do they just turn up with a baseball bat? Unarmed?

Ideally tasks requiring to carry a gun would still be done by professionals for a long time.

An accountant and a marketing executive trying to arrest a crew of hardened gangsters armed to the teeth isn't exactly going to be met with peaceful acquiescence.

Yep, but they could arrest a shop lifter. No guns required.

Which members of the community are specialists in arresting terrorists and armed gangsters? Where are they getting their multi-million dollar equipment sets from? Can anyone just turn up and ask to borrow the town's bomb disposal robot? Who is being held to account if they get it wrong and many people get killed?

Which members of the public are experts in crime scene forensics for rapes and murders? Where are they getting their lab and gear from? Who is being held to account if they mess it up if mass killers and serial rapists get off the hook?

You are not acquainted with volunteer organizations, are you?

 

[Augustus]

Yep, but they could arrest a shop lifter. No guns required.

A shoplifter may be carrying a knife or gun.

Or just someone who violently resists arrest.

Why should a volunteer be better in this situation than a police officer with more training and experience?

And that would be one of the last tasks I'd hand over to volunteers. But I guess there will be qualified ex military people willing to do it.

Where is their equipment coming from?

Who is held accountable for mistakes that end in the loss of life?

You are not acquainted with volunteer organizations, are you?

I think you are underestimating the problems by thinking it's akin to fire fighting.

These are specialised positions that are best done by a professional.

Others can learn the skills but not to the extent of a full time specialist, and that expertise can save lives.

A butcher can learn surgery, but I'd prefer a specialist surgeon.

You also need to consider that the police have access to all kinds of sensitive and confidential information. You can't give volunteers access to international terrorism databases etc.

Undercover operations? Witness protection? Child protection?

Who vets volunteers to root out criminals as you know they are trying to infiltrate?

The only way it can work would basically be something that resembles the current police just run by less well trained amateurs with less accountability.

 

[Koldo]

I don't really see the problem? We are not argueing that democracy is axiomatically the only possible way to organize human society -. we know for a fact that other forms of government are not only possible but have been the norm throughout history. What democracy has been going for is that it is, arguably, the best form of government if people are to participate in the political decisionmaking process - which is not a claim that deals with verifiable fact, but hypotheticals and, arguably, moral stances.

But the argument I was responding to was not that the police, in its modern form, was the best possible way to go about enforcing laws, but that police is a necessary component of governance and has therefore always existed in some form or another - an empirical claim that can be fact checked, and which, in my humble opinion, is not borne out by the historical record at all, at least not if we are being precise with our definitions and aren't operating under the premise that policing is axiomatic to a civilized society.

I merely meant that the fact that something is not necessary, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with whether it is necessary for a good life standard in a given country.

I think the post you were replying to had more to do with the latter kind of necessity.

 

[Koldo]

It would both require and strengthen a sense of community. Sadly, I see that dwindling in the moment. We have given away (or they were taken away) many tasks that were once understood as common duties where there is now a "public service". Sometimes for the better (because it is more equal due to stately or federal standards), sometimes for worse.
Ironically it is the criminals who still have sense of community. For a gang member "the 'hood" means something whereas for many others it's the place where ones bed sleeps.

The biggest problem, as far as I see it, is that if you leave it up to the communities to sort their own problems, a new set of rules and laws will arrive.

Due legal process be damned if the community has some lynching to be done.

 

[Left Coast]

No, I haven't. (But I'm used to find that others have expressed my ideas and often better than I could.)

The internet was touted as the "global village" in the 90s. And in a way it is that people live more in that virtual village than the real one. I surely do.

I think the Internet has had some amazingly positive effects on society and I think some corners of the internet are "villages" in their own way. But most people, in my experience, don't treat them like villages of the "olden days," because they don't have to. Online villages can be joined or left much more willy nilly than actual neighborhoods where people are socially obligated to have some investment in getting along with their neighbors, working toward mutually beneficial goals, etc.

 

[Heyo]

A shoplifter may be carrying a knife or gun.

Or just someone who violently resists arrest.

Why should a volunteer be better in this situation than a police officer with more training and experience?



Where is their equipment coming from?

Who is held accountable for mistakes that end in the loss of life?



I think you are underestimating the problems by thinking it's akin to fire fighting.

These are specialised positions that are best done by a professional.

Others can learn the skills but not to the extent of a full time specialist, and that expertise can save lives.

A butcher can learn surgery, but I'd prefer a specialist surgeon.

You also need to consider that the police have access to all kinds of sensitive and confidential information. You can't give volunteers access to international terrorism databases etc.

Undercover operations? Witness protection? Child protection?

Who vets volunteers to root out criminals as you know they are trying to infiltrate?

The only way it can work would basically be something that resembles the current police just run by less well trained amateurs with less accountability.

Iirc you are not from the US but also from a country where people are similarly violent and criminal? (With the US being the most criminal population on the planet.) Of course your experience leads somewhat to misanthropy. You expect a shoplifter to carry a weapon and violently resisting arrest. In such a society a professional policy force is probably the better solution.
I happen to live in a society where violence and criminality is low and everyone short of a terrorist would make his situation worse by resisting arrest and knows it. I can see volunteer police working. Ymmv.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

It's worth considering the importance of the social contract:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Please take a peek and share insights.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some folks on the Left are calling for complete abolition of police. If that's your position, how would that actually work on a practical level? Would we have no job or position in society responsible for law enforcement? For apprehending criminals? For protecting victims of crime?

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?

If people want to live in a society without police that still functions well, we'd have to go back to living as hunter-gatherers in small bands. They didn't need the police because they had other ways of enforcing social cohesion. Somehow that was good enough for humanity for the vast majority of our existence!

But now? No, we absolutely need a police force of some kind in the ridiculous societies we've created. We're too far gone now.

 

[Kooky]

I merely meant that the fact that something is not necessary, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with whether it is necessary for a good life standard in a given country.

I think the post you were replying to had more to do with the latter kind of necessity.

Then that defeats the ostensible purpose of this thread, which claimed to want to explore a society without police.
If we take the modern police force to be axiomatic to civilization, then no such society can exist, and the question in the OP was either rhetorical or pointless.

 

[Koldo]

Then that defeats the ostensible purpose of this thread, which claimed to want to explore a society without police.
If we take the modern police force to be axiomatic to civilization, then no such society can exist, and the question in the OP was either rhetorical or pointless.

That's not what I am saying though.
The question is: Can any society prosper and achieve a good living standard for its' citizens without a police force?

 

[Augustus]

Iirc you are not from the US but also from a country where people are similarly violent and criminal?

Have lived in many places, from Europe to SE Asia.

The same would apply to any of them.

Most European police forces are pretty good, still many flaws, but they do a pretty good job overall.

You really think the German police are that bad that you would prefer to do without them?

You expect a shoplifter to carry a weapon and violently resisting arrest. In such a society a professional policy force is probably the better solution.

It's just a fact that some shoplifters do carry weapons. Whether the average one does is beside the point, it is an eventuality that a volunteer would have to be prepared for.

I happen to live in a society where violence and criminality is low and everyone short of a terrorist would make his situation worse by resisting arrest and knows it. I can see volunteer police working. Ymmv.

People will do many things if they think they can get away with it.

Germany is comparable to most other Western European nations in terms of crime rate. There are gangs, thugs and organised criminals same as everywhere else.

Also, unlike fire volunteers, you don't have wealthy and powerful interests actively trying to subvert the system for their own benefit. Areas of weak law enforcement also actively attract criminals. There is far more dynamic feedback into a law enforcement system.

You might be able to get a volunteer force that covers some tasks in rural Bavaria, but scaling that for Berlin, Hamburg or the Ruhr Valley with the exponential increase in complexity and level of criminality is not something that is remotely practical imo.

Scale matters.

Of course your experience leads somewhat to misanthropy.

I'd say realism, so we'll have to disagree on that

Rational, middle-class, educated professionals always tend to overestimate the representativeness of their own thought processes: "I'm a rational educated member of society willing to play by the rules for the common good, there's no reason why everyone else can't do likewise".

That's why they are so vulnerable to buying into arguments about things that should work 'in theory', and never cease to be amazed when things work out differently in practice.