Society Without Police?

[Kooky]

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?

Actually, the original question was this one:

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?

But, of course, it was immediately undercut by the premise of axiomatic police:

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?

So in retrospect, I was probably an idiot for assuming we would be debating the first question in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

So in retrospect, I was probably an idiot for assuming we would be debating the first question in the first place.

Perhaps you missed this earlier post....
"It would be great for those of us who are
proactive (ie, well armed & vigilant)."

We'd all be responsible for our own self defense & justice.
We could also form alliances, hire defenders & enforcers,
or do nothing & just hope for the best.
Any thoughts on this idea?

 

[Left Coast]

Actually, the original question was this one:


But, of course, it was immediately undercut by the premise of axiomatic police:


So in retrospect, I was probably an idiot for assuming we would be debating the first question in the first place.

@Koldo's interpetation was correct. I'm not arguing it's literally impossible to abolish police. Sure, we could just arbitrarily abolish all police tomorrow. But the point is, there would be a gap in services provided to communities that would need to be filled somehow if we want to be reasonably functional as a society.

I'm asking people who want to abolish police how a society would function without police today. How would it actually work?

 

[Heyo]

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

Some of them, yes. But they are taken care of.
But it wouldn't hurt to replace some of them with volunteers.

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.

Just like any shop clerk or house detective.

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.

I agree, scale matters. That doesn't impact that in low crime areas a mostly volunteer force could function just as well. And even in big cities some tasks could be just as well, or better, handled by other than regular police.

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.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I said in the beginning that a total abolition of the police is not practical now. (It will be when we have developed into a rational, middle-class, educated professionals society.)

 

[Isolde Schulz]

Some of them, yes. But they are taken care of.
But it wouldn't hurt to replace some of them with volunteers.

Just like any shop clerk or house detective.

I agree, scale matters. That doesn't impact that in low crime areas a mostly volunteer force could function just as well. And even in big cities some tasks could be just as well, or better, handled by other than regular police.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I said in the beginning that a total abolition of the police is not practical now. (It will be when we have developed into a rational, middle-class, educated professionals society.)

And yet, a drastic shift is exactly what we need now. The fallout at first will never eclipse the end goal, which I trust we agree on. It takes societal bravado.

 

[sayak83]

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.

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?

Always call the ghostbusters.

 

[sayak83]

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.



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.



On that I agree.

The Arthasastra written in 300 BCE talks about town and city watch who patrol the streets and does regular policing duties. There was always a police force in any urban population center, usually paid for by the resident king or aristocracy.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

The Arthasastra written in 300 BCE talks about town and city watch who patrol the streets and does regular policing duties. There was always a police force in any urban population center, usually paid for by the resident king or aristocracy.

Few monarchies remain, but it may become useful once again providing a lucid monarch. I'll be certain to choose my allegiances wisely.

 

[Augustus]

(It will be when we have developed into a rational, middle-class, educated professionals society.)

So we agree it will never happen, excellent

 

[Heyo]

So we agree it will never happen, excellent

Never say never but it won't happen for a long time.

 

[Kooky]

I'm asking people who want to abolish police how a society would function without police today. How would it actually work?

I went into that, but you responded by explaining how any organization inhabiting one of the many functions of modern police would be just a police force by a different name.

Based on that response, am I right in assuming that you operate under the premise that "a society without police" would not have any organization taking over any of the common functions of a police force at all? That, in short, a society without a police would not have organizations tasked to deal with theft, violent crime, protests... i.e. any of the issues that a modern police force exists, in theory, to address?

 

[Left Coast]

Based on that response, am I right in assuming that you operate under the premise that "a society without police" would not have any organization taking over any of the common functions of a police force at all? That, in short, a society without a police would not have organizations tasked to deal with theft, violent crime, protests... i.e. any of the issues that a modern police force exists, in theory, to address?

No, I asked how such societies would actually meet those needs in practice. In a society without police, what do I if someone is breaking into my house and I fear for my safety? In a society without police, when someone is driving dangerously on the road or committing some other crime, who do I call?

For some fraction of concerns, you suggested mental health or social work professionals. Your other suggestions were to have organizations of specialists who would address particular types of crimes. Which strikes me as simply a police force that is subdivided. We're still talking about trained law enforcement public servants whose job is to respond to and investigate crime, enforce the law, and arrest criminals. That's a police force, is it not?

 

[Kooky]

No, I asked how such societies would actually meet those needs in practice. In a society without police, what do I if someone is breaking into my house and I fear for my safety? In a society without police, when someone is driving dangerously on the road or committing some other crime, who do I call?

For some fraction of concerns, you suggested mental health or social work professionals.

These are not "some fraction of concerns", these are the overwhelming majority of police work. The real, factual amount of home invasions that police get to respond to are tiny, compared to the sheer amount of petty crime, noise disturbance calls, or traffic issues they get to deal with on a daily basis.

Your other suggestions were to have organizations of specialists who would address particular types of crimes.
Which strikes me as simply a police force that is subdivided. We're still talking about trained law enforcement public servants whose job is to respond to and investigate crime, enforce the law, and arrest criminals. That's a police force, is it not?

My entire point - which I apparently explained badly - was that these would not be "subdivisions" of a police force, these would be wholly separate organizations, unarmed, trained specifically for the task they are to be deployed for. We don't need an armed force trained in the manner of most modern police forces to deal with the majority of issues police actually deal with on a daily basis.

Nobody needs pistol target practice and crowd control training to settle noise complaints, track down a company's accounts, or to apprehend shoplifters, let alone the paramilitary equipment common to US police forces.

 

[Left Coast]

These are not "some fraction of concerns", these are the overwhelming majority of police work. The real, factual amount of home invasions that police get to respond to are tiny, compared to the sheer amount of petty crime, noise disturbance calls, or traffic issues they get to deal with on a daily basis.

Petty crime, noise disturbance calls, and traffic violations would be handled by social workers in the society you're imagining?

 

[Kooky]

Petty crime, noise disturbance calls, and traffic violations would be handled by social workers in the society you're imagining?

Or professional mediators, or community counselors, or some other person apt at settling social conflicts in a peacable fashion.

Traffick ticketing could be easily handled by volunteers.

 

[Left Coast]

Or professional mediators, or community counselors, or some other person apt at settling social conflicts in a peacable fashion.

These folks would require specialized training as well as the authority to enforce the law, up to and including arrest.

Traffick ticketing could be easily handled by volunteers.

...volunteers? You want people to enforce traffic laws for free?

As above, these individuals would be obligated to do more than ticket people for running stop signs. They would require specialized training as well as authority to enforce the law, including arresting people. Other than refusing to pay them, how are these people not cops?

 

[Kooky]

These folks would require specialized training as well as the authority to enforce the law, up to and including arrest.

These are literally harm-less issues, why would we need to put people in jail over them? But your objection is valid - our laws were passed with the presumption of a paramilitary security force and oppression apparatus, after all. Evidently, we can't keep a legal framework that is predicated on the existence of paramilitary enforcement of all laws and regulations.

...volunteers? You want people to enforce traffic laws for free? As above, these individuals would be obligated to do more than ticket people for running stop signs.

I honestly can't think of a single traffic issue that would require an armed government agent. Can you?

They would require specialized training as well as authority to enforce the law, including arresting people. Other than refusing to pay them, how are these people not cops?

They wouldn't have the power to stop and search people on the vague suspicion of drug crime, for one. Evidently, you can't fight a "War on Drugs" in a society without police - but I would consider that a feature rather than a bug. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Left Coast]

These are literally harm-less issues, why would we need to put people in jail over them?

Why would we need to put a guy in jail who just beat up his wife? Surely you can understand that when responding to DV, for example, whomever responds needs the authority to separate the parties up to and including arrest.

Similarly if dealing with other petty crime like theft.

But your objection is valid - our laws were passed with the presumption of a paramilitary security force and oppression apparatus, after all.

There's nothing "oppressive" about protecting victims of crime and ensuring that people who harm others are brought to justice. That's literally the opposite of oppression.

I honestly can't think of a single traffic issue that would require an armed government agent. Can you?

In the US? Absolutely. Do you know how many crazy people have guns in this country? Who carry those guns in their vehicles?

Not infrequently, routine traffic stops become complicated - when pulling someone over who has a warrant out for their arrest, for example.

They wouldn't have the power to stop and search people on the vague suspicion of drug crime, for one. Evidently, you can't fight a "War on Drugs" in a society without police - but I would consider that a feature rather than a bug. Your mileage may vary.

I'm in favor of decriminalizing drug use, as long as they're not using/intoxicated while driving. So I agree with you there.

 

[Kooky]

There's nothing "oppressive" about protecting victims of crime and ensuring that people who harm others are brought to justice. That's literally the opposite of oppression.

I don't think "the opposite of oppression" is a racist paramilitary force whose primary goal is upholding an inequal social order with a heavy helping of brutalizing populations whom society has singled out as acceptable targets, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue under debate here.

 

[Left Coast]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue under debate here.

I think so. You seem to regard all law enforcement as inherently oppressive and racist. I don't.