What are good alternatives to the police.

[mathew101281]

Yes, their is a lot of corruption in the police department. But sometimes I feel some of the alternatives are very naive. How would we deal with violent crime in a world where police don’t exist? We as a Americans live in a country where their are more guns then people. How do you enforce the law in a land where criminals can be extremely well armed without being well armed yourself. That’s what I’m asking?

[Kirby101]

People don't want to end police forces. They want to stop the militarization of them, make them more answerable for bad cops, and move some of the things they do to other social services.
Defunding the police is not about abolishing the police.

[Gray Lensman]

People don't want to end police forces. They want to stop the militarization of them, make them more answerable for bad cops, and move some of the things they do to other social services.
Defunding the police is not about abolishing the police.

Pretty much this - put some of the money into rebuilding communities and funding other services to make police less needed. Make cops accountable, with an emphasis on being able to get rid of the bad ones before they can ruin the good ones. Getting rid of a police department entirely is a nuclear option reserved only for the ones so bad that there is probably no saving them - and even then some funding will have to be pushed to boost county and state level departments to fill in the gaps until the city department can be rebuilt.

I have a wish list myself -

- end civil forfeiture. I'm willing to compromise a little, by both requiring a much higher burden of proof (we have it and prove you didn't is un-American) and forbidding the funds from going into the police budget. Requiring criminal proof is better though.

- remove much of the military equipment, and put more restrictions on using what is left. My best friend lives in a city that had initial protests, but they have wound down where he lives - the cops didn't show up to them decked out in full riot gear, they only had that stuff on standby. By not escalating things there things quieted down much more quickly.

- special prosecutors for when police officers are accused of crimes. While the shooting in Ferguson was not as bad as it first looked, I was personally disgusted by the DA presenting defense evidence (and known unreliable witnesses for that defense) to the grand jury. NO ONE ELSE gets to have the DA play defense for them, and while cops DO deserve justice and due process, they don't deserve better justice. Prosecutors who depend on the police to win cases can't always be trusted to do what is required of them.

- end or severely curtail qualified immunity. I'm fine with QI covering actions made in good faith, but when it is so nitpicky that every type of instance of abuse must be have a previous court case to be upheld (and by nitpicky I mean a simple change of terrain can be enough to protect cops from bad actions found to be bad by a court elsewhere - "The case cited was in a ditch, but you were beaten in a manmade culvert - QI applies" HAS happened) it has certainly gone too far. Retaliatory actions should NEVER be covered by qualified immunity.

- Charges like resisting arrest should only be allowed with other charges. If I was a judge, every time I saw it as a stand alone charge my first question would be "WHAT was this person arrested for? And why are those charges not on the list?"

- make it easier to remove bad cops, AND KEEP THEM GONE.

- repeal the shield laws that exist to protect cops from basic investigation tactics. In New York, it is illegal to start questioning a cop until he or she has been allowed to talk to their union rep.

- start throwing out cases where footage that is supposed to be handed over is somehow damaged or destroyed when in the hands of the police department. This isn't just body/dash cam footage, but seized security camera stuff. It seems that all too often they somehow manage to destroy things when people claim that security footage seized by police would exonerate them.

- stop 'warrior cop' training, and re-emphasize that the police are guardians. Up to and including making attending warrior cop classes a firing offense even if done on the officers own dime. I consider it to be THAT toxic.

[Gray Lensman]

Pretty much this - put some of the money into rebuilding communities and funding other services to make police less needed. Make cops accountable, with an emphasis on being able to get rid of the bad ones before they can ruin the good ones. Getting rid of a police department entirely is a nuclear option reserved only for the ones so bad that there is probably no saving them - and even then some funding will have to be pushed to boost county and state level departments to fill in the gaps until the city department can be rebuilt.

I have a wish list myself -

- end civil forfeiture. I'm willing to compromise a little, by both requiring a much higher burden of proof (we have it and prove you didn't is un-American) and forbidding the funds from going into the police budget. Requiring criminal proof is better though.

- remove much of the military equipment, and put more restrictions on using what is left. My best friend lives in a city that had initial protests, but they have wound down where he lives - the cops didn't show up to them decked out in full riot gear, they only had that stuff on standby. By not escalating things there things quieted down much more quickly.

- special prosecutors for when police officers are accused of crimes. While the shooting in Ferguson was not as bad as it first looked, I was personally disgusted by the DA presenting defense evidence (and known unreliable witnesses for that defense) to the grand jury. NO ONE ELSE gets to have the DA play defense for them, and while cops DO deserve justice and due process, they don't deserve better justice. Prosecutors who depend on the police to win cases can't always be trusted to do what is required of them.

- end or severely curtail qualified immunity. I'm fine with QI covering actions made in good faith, but when it is so nitpicky that every type of instance of abuse must be have a previous court case to be upheld (and by nitpicky I mean a simple change of terrain can be enough to protect cops from bad actions found to be bad by a court elsewhere - "The case cited was in a ditch, but you were beaten in a manmade culvert - QI applies" HAS happened) it has certainly gone too far. Retaliatory actions should NEVER be covered by qualified immunity.

- Charges like resisting arrest should only be allowed with other charges. If I was a judge, every time I saw it as a stand alone charge my first question would be "WHAT was this person arrested for? And why are those charges not on the list?"

- make it easier to remove bad cops, AND KEEP THEM GONE.

- repeal the shield laws that exist to protect cops from basic investigation tactics. In New York, it is illegal to start questioning a cop until he or she has been allowed to talk to their union rep.

- start throwing out cases where footage that is supposed to be handed over is somehow damaged or destroyed when in the hands of the police department. This isn't just body/dash cam footage, but seized security camera stuff. It seems that all too often they somehow manage to destroy things when people claim that security footage seized by police would exonerate them.

- stop 'warrior cop' training, and re-emphasize that the police are guardians. Up to and including making attending warrior cop classes a firing offense even if done on the officers own dime. I consider it to be THAT toxic.

- outside review boards should be just that, staffing them with police advocates and former cops defeats the very purpose of their existence.

[shooshoomanjoe]

People don't want to end police forces. They want to stop the militarization of them, make them more answerable for bad cops, and move some of the things they do to other social services.
Defunding the police is not about abolishing the police.

I know it's not a popular suggestion but I think they should be MPs. The military is trained to be disciplined and when you screw up big you are answerable for your actions. They don't need to have the weapons and vehicles that the military has but they need military discipline.

[Gotham citizen]

[…]
How would we deal with violent crime in a world where police don’t exist?
[…]

In the past (before the creation of the Police), the people solved that issue in two ways: the ones enough brave (or violent) usually did justice (or vengeance) by themselves, the others instead had to put themselves under the protection of a family enough powerful and rich to give them protection. The first ones eventually became bandits, criminals, outlaws (call them how you prefer), while those powerful families became the aristocrat families of the past civilizations or the modern mobsters, but in both the cases the justice were administrated in a very arbitrary way, so at a certain point of their history every civilizations solved that problem creating a Police Force (for example the Ancient Rome created the Vigiles) in order to put the public order under the responsibility of an impartial force.

[Kirby101]

In the past (before the creation of the Police), the people solved that issue in two ways: the ones enough brave (or violent) usually did justice (or vengeance) by themselves, the others instead had to put themselves under the protection of a family enough powerful and rich to give them protection. The first ones eventually became bandits, criminals, outlaws (call them how you prefer), while those powerful families became the aristocrat families of the past civilizations or the modern mobsters, but in both the cases the justice were administrated in a very arbitrary way, so at a certain point of their history every civilizations solved that problem creating a Police Force (for example the Ancient Rome created the Vigiles) in order to put the public order under the responsibility of an impartial force.

Sort of like today when we look at policing and justice for black vs white and rich vs poor.

[Gotham citizen]

There are a lot of black U.S. citizens who don't agree with you.

[DrNewGod]

I know it's not a popular suggestion but I think they should be MPs. The military is trained to be disciplined and when you screw up big you are answerable for your actions. They don't need to have the weapons and vehicles that the military has but they need military discipline.

Posse comitatus. The US Army legally can't engage in civilian law and order enforcement at home except under very specific circumstances. And we don't want them to do so. If they could, Trump would have hit Portland with the 10th Ranger Battalion and the First Marine Division weeks ago.

Going back to the OP, change the nature of the DA's office. Remove full time prosecutors and full time public defenders. Make the DA responsible for exactly two things: hiring private attorneys to argue the district's case or to represent accused who cannot afford counsel, and offering legal opinion on issues facing the district. The goal being to remove the incentive for jerks to use conviction rates as a reelection tool.

[Kirby101]

There are a lot of black U.S. citizens who don't agree with you.

That there is a demonstrable difference in law enforcement toward black people vs white people? Where are these "lot of black people"? Is that like Trumps "a lot of people are saying"?

The view among black people that the disparity in treatment by the police is part of a systemic problem is 79% to 18%.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017...-public-views/

[Kirby101]

Posse comitatus. The US Army legally can't engage in civilian law and order enforcement at home except under very specific circumstances. And we don't want them to do so. If they could, Trump would have hit Portland with the 10th Ranger Battalion and the First Marine Division weeks ago.

Going back to the OP, change the nature of the DA's office. Remove full time prosecutors and full time public defenders. Make the DA responsible for exactly two things: hiring private attorneys to argue the district's case or to represent accused who cannot afford counsel, and offering legal opinion on issues facing the district. The goal being to remove the incentive for jerks to use conviction rates as a reelection tool.

The DA being an elected office was suppose to make them accountable. But it is amazing how voters just don't care about the wrongful conviction of innocent people. Even in capital cases.

[Gotham citizen]

That there is a demonstrable difference in law enforcement toward black people vs white people? Where are these "lot of black people"? Is that like Trumps "a lot of people are saying"?

The view among black people that the disparity in treatment by the police is part of a systemic problem is 79% to 18%.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017...-public-views/

Coleman Huges, Larry Elder, the ex Police Officer Brandon Tatum and I could go on.

[Mister Mets]

In the past (before the creation of the Police), the people solved that issue in two ways: the ones enough brave (or violent) usually did justice (or vengeance) by themselves, the others instead had to put themselves under the protection of a family enough powerful and rich to give them protection. The first ones eventually became bandits, criminals, outlaws (call them how you prefer), while those powerful families became the aristocrat families of the past civilizations or the modern mobsters, but in both the cases the justice were administrated in a very arbitrary way, so at a certain point of their history every civilizations solved that problem creating a Police Force (for example the Ancient Rome created the Vigiles) in order to put the public order under the responsibility of an impartial force.

Yeah, that is much worse than what we have today.

People don't want to end police forces. They want to stop the militarization of them, make them more answerable for bad cops, and move some of the things they do to other social services.
Defunding the police is not about abolishing the police.

Different people have different interpretations of what it means.

There was an Op-ed in the New York Times calling for the abolishment of the police.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

That there is a demonstrable difference in law enforcement toward black people vs white people? Where are these "lot of black people"? Is that like Trumps "a lot of people are saying"?

The view among black people that the disparity in treatment by the police is part of a systemic problem is 79% to 18%.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017...-public-views/

Is justice as arbitrary as it was under the medieval lords?

[Kirby101]

Coleman Huges, Larry Elder, the ex Police Officer Brandon Tatum and I could go on.

So? A few black people who don't agree with the vast majority of black people. And the difference in law enforcement toward people of color is statistically demonstrable. And that is the point, there is a disparity in all parts of the Justice system.

[Kirby101]

Y

Is justice as arbitrary as it was under the medieval lords?

Is that the standards for Republicans? I know they think there should have been no changes since 1787, but do we go that far back to say we have equal justice now?