The problem is it is an untested approach that appears very high risk. What do you during the time frame of building the replacement? How do you ensure the replacement system works and doesn’t devolve into abuse or force or authoritarianism? These are reasons, in addition to the vast political resistance, why these things haven’t been tried.
The only way to actually try something like this to me seems to be to set up a replacement system BEFORE the old system is scrapped and have it gradually take on responsibilities but there are enormous problems with that: funding, transition of responsibilities, resistance from the existing forces, and so on. And just the funding issue alone is probably deadly to the concept: I can’t really imagine taxpayers being willing to fund a properly staffed police-replacement AND the police at the same time.
Bottom line is, as much as reform has not worked, I believe that in the big picture the kind of roadmap I outlined above is the only workable way forward. All of the other ideas have even greater problems IMO.
But isn’t there evidence that earlier centuries were horrifically violent if we count all the crimes properly? Although the media sensationalizes our current crime numbers, we have a huge population. My recollection is that if you look at the stats and extrapolate reasonably to include those who didn’t get to report crimes in the old days, that prior centuries had per capita crime rates that make us look like a bunch of peace loving mellow heads.
Well my focus is on disbanding the police unions which I consider a core impediment to reform but not the actual departments. So the policing would continue while the organization is restructured, with the core resistant to reform elements removed. That’s the basic idea. It’s a “structural reform” or a “complete rebuilding” type of reform. A deep cleaning if you will.
The key difference with defund and replace is that my road map never puts us through a period of not having police, and uses the structural and administrative elements to maintain a certain level of law enforcement during the transition.
However, what I’m proposing is in fact a lot more radical than anything that has been tried yet, so I’m kind of pipe dreaming. But I do think that’s the way forward.
Once you get to a certain size though? No. It’s never good or fine.
And that size is a population center around 25k, in my experience.
Sure. But it depends if you think that lower crime is from cops or other stuff or some combination thereof.
Cops prevent gangs of people taking over a town, for example, though many would argue it’s because they’re gangs that have taken over the town already anyway. If you look how police act and are treated by the legal system, it’s an apt comparison. They have more rights than everyone else, immunity to most criminal acts, high pay, are often criminals themselves, etc, etc.
Edit: And policing itself isn’t a de facto bad thing. You can fire all the current cops, replace them with better people, better rules for cops and have a better system. But you can’t do any of that with the current systems because they have tons of political power and a near-monopoly on violence and the justice system.
I’m not sure it’s easy to show that police departments reduce violence. What seems to reduce violence is social infrastructure and attitudes, reduced poverty, better economic opportunity and outcomes. The earliest formal / large police departments in the US were created to crack down on labor movements, not reduce violence.
Just wanted to push back on this false equivalence a bit. Neither Muslims nor immigrants have qualified immunity from prosecution for killing someone. Neither belong to organizations with an omerta code (except, you know, Italian gangsters and if you want to say the police are like the mob, go right ahead.) Neither are given firearms and charged with a duty to serve and protect. Neither work hand-in-glove with the DA’s office on a regular basis, creating a conflict of interest.
Dumb cops sometimes abuse their authority and end up killing people. That’s bad, but a few bad cops might be worth the benefit to society that security provides. The problem, though, is police culture: militarization, immunity, paranoia, cops-vs-the-world, special treatment, reflexive victim blaming, wall of silence, no accountability. That’s why police are a cancer. Not all cops are bad, but police as an organization do nothing to mitigate their bad actors; they amplify them and protect them. It’s like the Catholic church. Very few priests rape children, but when an organization protects its own worst members at the expense of the public, that organization is a cancer. And when that organization is the police–the people we rely on to maintain order and control criminal activity–when they’re protecting the criminals in their midst, trust erodes, abuse fosters, institutions crumble, jackboots tromp.
But none of that matters, in terms of you specifically attributing the actions of some to the entirety of a group.
Your mentality in this regard is exactly the same as the bigotry directed at any other group.
Your criticisms of specific cops doing specific acts is totally legitimate, and I agree with those criticisms… But saying that all cops are a cancer, just isn’t supported by any sort of evidence.
Your statement went too far.
You attempt to now hide it behind a figleaf of, “oh, not all cops are bad… They’re just all a cancer” is just that… A figleaf. You are in fact attempting to foster animosity towards those individuals, just as an Islamophobe may attempt to deploy a figleaf of “not all muslims are bad, it’s just that their religion promotes violence and hate!”
There are in fact good cops, who work in good departments that serve their communities well. Probably the majority of cops.
Since the teen is still alive, the charges seem appropriate. However, I did read that in contrast to the police saying the kid was “stable” his parents actually say he’s still in rough shape, hasn’t woken up, and is struggling to breathe. I also read that additional charges may be filed if he dies, which I believe is a real possibility. He was shot multiple times from I read, at point blank range
Macbeth and Mrs. Macbeth announced they were launching a thorough internal review of the incident that led to Duncan’s death; the two ultimately faulted his guards for allowing his body to launch itself at a dagger in such a hostile, threatening manner. After this review, the guards also ceased to be alive in what critics again called a Macbeth-involved incident.
This happened a few weeks ago but it bubbled up again. It is a real WTF
A Virginia cop goes to California, murders 3 family members, kidnaps a 15 year old girl he was trying to catfish, then commits suicide after he is chased.
