Well, to start with, violent crimes against people are statistically greater in places with higher wealth inequality and lower social safety nets, so addressing those issues is going to have a huge impact. Mental health services also make an impact. Secondly, police actually rarely directly prevent violent crime. Their main function in that respect is as an investigation service after the fact. That role would be better suited to an investigative body made up of other professionals, e.g. social workers, forensic scientists, doctors and sociologists. Thirdly, when intervention in response to ongoing violent crime is required, you could have a specialised rapid response service that doesnāt waste the billions to trillions of dollars that current, ineffective police forces cost the public purse yearly. Another option would be community prevention groups. This was part of the function the Black Panthers sought to take up alongside their other social programs, discouraging violent crime by acting as a neighbourhood watch.
Those are great measures, extremely important ones. Reduction is important. Police are incredibly over funded, not trained, and other tasks forces are important for mental health issues.
Typically theyāre more in the vein of preventing those who do it from re offending, yes. Of which itās quite poor at with our capitalist prison system.
Thirdly, when intervention in response to ongoing violent crime is required, you could have a specialised rapid response service
That I also agree with. However, that is, in fact, cops.
Itās important to realize that while bringing everyone up will massively reduce violent crime, it will not eliminate it. You always have horrifying abusers, and people who take hoy in violence.
The current police suck ass at investigation. They donāt do shit. Putting together an effective force that has specialized teams for necessary services rather than a one size fits nothing is a much, MUCH better solution.
Thereās no practical reason that investigative services would need to be provided by the police, and many good reasons it shouldnāt be. As well, would a rapid response service still be the police if their other functions have been stripped away? Would an independent investigative service or traffic enforcement still also be the police?
As well, focussing on the small minority that are convicted of heinous violent crimes is a distraction from the actual issues in my opinion. I like to believe we can come together as a society and brainstorm a better system.
Would an independent investigative service or traffic enforcement still also be the police?
Yes. The branch of law in charge of enforcement are and always will be cops no matter what form they take.
Thereās no practical reason that investigative services would need to be provided by the police
Yes, there is. When investigating potentially dangerous suspects or areas, itās important to have people trained to deal with that. Like actually trained, unlike present forces.
Itās a small portion that commit violent crimes, but violent crimes are not the only ones that create risk to others. You need to have investigatory forces for safety standards, both in the work place and on the roads, even in a socialist society.
Plus, a small number of violent criminals can disproportionately enforce fear upon a larger population if not dealt with properly by the law, so it is a necessary consideration.
As well, focussing on the small minority that are convicted of heinous violent crimes is a distraction from the actual issues in my opinion.
While it is often overstated by an incredible margin (see Chicago for a prime example) that doesnāt make violent crimes not actual issues. Itās important to see issues as proportionate as they are, but also realize that dealing with small issues is still important, especially as to keep them from blossoming into larger ones.
. I like to believe we can come together as a society and brainstorm a better system.
Our system is broken. Police as they are need to be abolished and burned to the ground as an institution, replaced with a force that isnāt built on a foundation of violence and protecting the rich.
Non-violent offenders donāt generally need to be arrested though. A summons to court is enough. You discussed workplace safety for example, where I donāt think direct arrests are needed. However, where they are, the judiciary could deploy deputies to bring offenders to their appearances. There is still no reason that an investigator must be a cop.
A safety authority that canāt arrest is toothless and worthless.
I donāt understand this fetish for authoritarian arrests. Can you explain why they would be needed by a safety authority? Or why a traffic safety service would necessarily be police?
Before I explain myself, which I will, Iād first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
Youāve talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues. Which doesnāt really sound correct for the US, OSHA exists, but I donāt live there. I do know for certain that police arenāt involved in that process at all in Australia, it falls under WorkSafe. To me, that is an example of how investigative services can be provided by other bodies than the police. WorkSafe still has teeth, and could work directly with the judiciary when violations reach a criminal level. You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.
The entire issue with policing is that itās one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps youāve heard the term āwe investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrongā? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasnāt in charge of investigation, that would be much harder.
Same with traffic enforcement. If they arenāt pulling you over and lying about āsmelling marijuanaā then less corruption is going to occur. Have their only job be traffic enforcement. Roadside drug and alcohol testing is important, people shouldnāt drive under the influence, but having weed in your glovebox doesnāt affect your ability to drive. Iāve actually joked to a number of friends that we should get a bunch of grandmas doing traffic enforcement. I think having an older woman tut and fuss at you like ācome on now sweetheart, you know itās not nice to run through a red light, you might hurt yourself or othersā and give you the look would honestly be pretty effective in my opinion. (This last part is mostly a joke by the way.)
Well, to start with, violent crimes against people are statistically greater in places with higher wealth inequality and lower social safety nets, so addressing those issues is going to have a huge impact. Mental health services also make an impact. Secondly, police actually rarely directly prevent violent crime. Their main function in that respect is as an investigation service after the fact. That role would be better suited to an investigative body made up of other professionals, e.g. social workers, forensic scientists, doctors and sociologists. Thirdly, when intervention in response to ongoing violent crime is required, you could have a specialised rapid response service that doesnāt waste the billions to trillions of dollars that current, ineffective police forces cost the public purse yearly. Another option would be community prevention groups. This was part of the function the Black Panthers sought to take up alongside their other social programs, discouraging violent crime by acting as a neighbourhood watch.
Those are great measures, extremely important ones. Reduction is important. Police are incredibly over funded, not trained, and other tasks forces are important for mental health issues.
Typically theyāre more in the vein of preventing those who do it from re offending, yes. Of which itās quite poor at with our capitalist prison system.
That I also agree with. However, that is, in fact, cops.
Itās important to realize that while bringing everyone up will massively reduce violent crime, it will not eliminate it. You always have horrifying abusers, and people who take hoy in violence.
The current police suck ass at investigation. They donāt do shit. Putting together an effective force that has specialized teams for necessary services rather than a one size fits nothing is a much, MUCH better solution.
Thereās no practical reason that investigative services would need to be provided by the police, and many good reasons it shouldnāt be. As well, would a rapid response service still be the police if their other functions have been stripped away? Would an independent investigative service or traffic enforcement still also be the police?
As well, focussing on the small minority that are convicted of heinous violent crimes is a distraction from the actual issues in my opinion. I like to believe we can come together as a society and brainstorm a better system.
Yes. The branch of law in charge of enforcement are and always will be cops no matter what form they take.
Yes, there is. When investigating potentially dangerous suspects or areas, itās important to have people trained to deal with that. Like actually trained, unlike present forces.
Itās a small portion that commit violent crimes, but violent crimes are not the only ones that create risk to others. You need to have investigatory forces for safety standards, both in the work place and on the roads, even in a socialist society.
Plus, a small number of violent criminals can disproportionately enforce fear upon a larger population if not dealt with properly by the law, so it is a necessary consideration.
While it is often overstated by an incredible margin (see Chicago for a prime example) that doesnāt make violent crimes not actual issues. Itās important to see issues as proportionate as they are, but also realize that dealing with small issues is still important, especially as to keep them from blossoming into larger ones.
Our system is broken. Police as they are need to be abolished and burned to the ground as an institution, replaced with a force that isnāt built on a foundation of violence and protecting the rich.
Where I live, both of these are already done by seperate, independent commissions.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from acquiring backup during those situations.
Sure. The people who arrest criminals will always be cops no matter how you dress them up.
Cops are not just the enforcers you donāt like. I suppose the most accurate definition would be a cop is a person with authority to arrest.
A safety authority that canāt arrest is toothless and worthless.
Non-violent offenders donāt generally need to be arrested though. A summons to court is enough. You discussed workplace safety for example, where I donāt think direct arrests are needed. However, where they are, the judiciary could deploy deputies to bring offenders to their appearances. There is still no reason that an investigator must be a cop.
I donāt understand this fetish for authoritarian arrests. Can you explain why they would be needed by a safety authority? Or why a traffic safety service would necessarily be police?
Before I explain myself, which I will, Iād first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
Youāve talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues. Which doesnāt really sound correct for the US, OSHA exists, but I donāt live there. I do know for certain that police arenāt involved in that process at all in Australia, it falls under WorkSafe. To me, that is an example of how investigative services can be provided by other bodies than the police. WorkSafe still has teeth, and could work directly with the judiciary when violations reach a criminal level. You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.
The entire issue with policing is that itās one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps youāve heard the term āwe investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrongā? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasnāt in charge of investigation, that would be much harder.
Same with traffic enforcement. If they arenāt pulling you over and lying about āsmelling marijuanaā then less corruption is going to occur. Have their only job be traffic enforcement. Roadside drug and alcohol testing is important, people shouldnāt drive under the influence, but having weed in your glovebox doesnāt affect your ability to drive. Iāve actually joked to a number of friends that we should get a bunch of grandmas doing traffic enforcement. I think having an older woman tut and fuss at you like ācome on now sweetheart, you know itās not nice to run through a red light, you might hurt yourself or othersā and give you the look would honestly be pretty effective in my opinion. (This last part is mostly a joke by the way.)