How does police abolitionism make practical sense? Criticizing failures in law enforcement i can understand, but how could anyone possibly think that abolishing the police is going to lead to anything except lynch mobs and might-makes-right warlords? Whenever i ask this i get either no answer or something like "Laws won't be necessary once the material circumstances that lead to criminal behavior have been abolished"
You're supposed to die, I don't see the problem.
Also the "Somalia" argument is stupid, america already has a higher homicide rate than Somalia.
That doesnt really counter the argument, because what you have is just warlords who do not register their own executions as murders.
Obviously not. But you're mentally moronic and will disagree.
>police shoot randomly
not randomly, there just isn't a racial bias.
The dedicated militia will take a police role.
>untrained normalshits start making the shots
Yeah I'll take the warlord please
A militia would be better than a warlord.
Police are a formalized militia with firepower greater than all historical militias.
the way it worked prior to codified legal systems.
more like
>a bunch of heckin racists are forming a mob to beat up le nig criminal?
>"not my problem"
>the way it worked prior to codified legal systems.
Trial by ordeal? Arbitrary judgements by the local tyrants? Grueling enforcement of taboos by sclerotic village elders? Mob justice? Cruel and unusual punishments? Blood price?
Great alternatives, bro
So, literally pre-historic? The first legal document we have is codified law.
Police "train" for 6 weeks and then never have to touch their gun again. Most militiamen I know have had pretty good and consistent training for years, sometimes decades, not to mention superior equipment. A militia-run territory would be a bloodbath as they kill random criminals or lynch, but that's basically how everywhere was pre-1900.
American police currently is pro population.
They somewhat try to control balance between left and right and do go crazy arresting anyone other than who breaks law.
They want to abolish police everywhere, remove all of the policemen who are pro population, then install their own.
>The dedicated militia
It won't , as Jan 6 showed they are trying to completely outlaw militia or any reasonable people with guns who can possibly provide protection and defend laws.
Reasonable people don't build a gallows and chant for the death of the vice president.
yeah instead the threaten to murder chief justices kek
That is not reasonable either and I never claimed it was. You however did claim 1/6 was reasonable, and now you try to turn it around and put words in my mouth because you think everyone is as moronic as you.
You are pathetic.
How does "due process" work without law enforcement and a justice system?
police abolition and defunding the police are two different concepts.
I wasnt talking about defunding the police
but there is no prominent historical movement that advocates for police abolition, so i wonder why this topic was brought up to be discussed at all?
Anarchists do it all the time, and commies also believe that police will no longer be needed once true communism has been achieved.
where was the great anarchy movement?
People do take anarchism seriously as a political philosophy, as moronic as it may be.
We've got a thread up for days that basically devolved into anons discussing modern politics
>
Why are you taking special exception to this thread?
>anon sees a thread about police abolitionism
>immediately jumps in to chime that there's a difference between police abolitionism and defunding the police
>neither the OP nor anyone ITT had mentioned defunding the police up to that point
What did he mean by this?
>remove power of violence from local interests
>crime increases exponentially
>oops! here's some federal soldiers on your streets to keep the peace
>lynch mobs
Anarchists don't usually buy into the professional-legal aversion to them, yeah miscarriages of justice happen but they do under any other system too
>might-makes-right warlords
Police by another name, there's a genuine risk in that case, but a citizens militia could probably defeat them.
I generally get the sense that police abolitionists are opposed more to the idea of "police" as a professionalized, distinct social role than to the idea of policing. Defending the community from predators is everyone's job and if you give someone a gun and a badge they'll turn into a petty warlord.
>Anarchists don't usually buy into the professional-legal aversion to them, yeah miscarriages of justice happen but they do under any other system too
That's like saying we should let anyone do surgery because medical mishaps happen under any system.
Law isn't medicine though. By which I mean it's a strictly human endeavor which we could choose to organize very differently than we currently do, although it'd involve a different set of trade-offs.
>Anarchists don't usually buy into the professional-legal aversion to them, yeah miscarriages of justice happen but they do under any other system too
Modern first world anarchists are horrified with lynching, though it’s because they think it’s racist first and foremost.
Also because it's gonna backfire, like with the Kyle Rittenhouse thing
>I generally get the sense that police abolitionists are opposed more to the idea of "police" as a professionalized, distinct social role than to the idea of policing. Defending the community from predators is everyone's job and if you give someone a gun and a badge they'll turn into a petty warlord.
Police as a profession is infinitely better than "any man a detective", because amateurs are very easy to deceive and manipulate. It doesn't help that quite often, murderers are those who are close to their victims, which will make it quite easy for them to deceive the "community".
Also, given how important forensics has become, there's no way you could entrust proper forsensics to "the community" or anyone who's not a specialized professional.
it's funny you should mention the mob because that's a very good reason to disband municipal police depts
we ALREADY have de facto warlords in the form of PMC orgs and gangs and the police sure don't do anything about them
much the opposite
they operate their most lucrative recruitment centers, the prison system
they are a militarized force of suppression against their fellow citizens and routinely trample on our constitutional rights
no vigilante ever hurt or waylaid me, can't say the same about cops
qualified immunity needs to fricking go, there is no reason why they should always get away with brutalization
This is complicated because different people who want to "abolish the police" have different ideas of what to do next. Yes there are a lot of moronic anarchists who just just go "muh no police anymore!" But It's more complicated than you think. There are also those who want to build new better run things to replace it.
Some just want new police. They think the entire Policing structure in the country is unsalvageable top-to-bottom, and so believe we have to rebuild the Police departments from the ground up with new administrative frameworks and firing and replacing literally everyone employed in the career (this has actually been done to good effect in many real life cases).
Others point out the "One Size Fits All" method we use of having "Police", where the same people responsible for gunning down lunatic shooters are the same people with the same authorities and training as the people who like, guide traffic, is both moronic, inefficient, and so large and powerful it becomes corrupt too easily. In this viewpoint the Police should be broken up into multiple different institutions. Yes you'll need an armed response team for things like school shooters and such, but there's no reason that should be the same organization responsible for handing out DUI's. After all why should a fricking traffic guide be militarized and told he can shoot people who "make him frightened".
>this has actually been done to good effect in many real life cases
For instance?
>Yes there are a lot of moronic anarchists who just just go "muh no police anymore!"
Why would anyone not kill police?
Have you never heard of malum in se?
Kys, Mark.
>no police
>no one to stop the homeguard and militias from stringing up pedos, pronographers, homos, troonys, and black terrorists
Police abolition makes sense under capitalism because capitalist protect bourgeois. Socialist countries don't need police abolition since they serve the people.
Wrong. Kill all cops.
NKVD = good cops
US = bad cops
If they kill each other yes.
>material circumstances that lead to criminal behavior
Low IQ, low inhibition, high aggression and other similar genetic factors are now considered "material circumstances"?
A lot of socialists do believe that all that can be remedied if you take away material circumstances. I think it's utopian nonsense, but many do actually believe that everybody can be rehabilitated.
It is a load of nonsense, they're sheltered and ignorant but think that they have all the answers.
Not all no.
You can't compare a desperate father stealing some pocket change or food from a stall to feed his family to some idiot throwing bricks through windows and assaulting random people.
There're different types of criminals and bunching them all together is a very, very stupid thing to do. Are serial killers a product of "material circumstances"?
Do you think all criminals are rabid wolves?
The majority of violent offenders have some degree of sociopathy, yes. How are you going to rehabilitate a sociopath?
A study in US federal prisons found about 20% of inmates had antisocial personalities. I suspect it's lower in state prisons, since federal offenses include a lot of crimes psychopaths excel in, like large scale organized crime, cybercrime, and white collar crime.
Serial killers can be the product of both inborn traits and upbringing. Some of them display early signs of disturbance (biggest red flag is torturing and killing animals), but it's also common for them to grow up in a hostile environment that instills ruthlessness and cruelty. By the point they've killed multiple people, they're probably too dangerous to be released. But someone who commits murder in less cold-blooded circumstances, like in a sudden dispute, may be capable of taking responsibility for what they've done, which is the first step towards rehabilitation.
>since federal offenses include a lot of crimes psychopaths excel in, like large scale organized crime, cybercrime, and white collar crime.
What? No they don't. Its mostly violent crimes that attract psychopaths, and Anti-social personality disorder is highly overrepresented in violent criminals
Why would that be? A lot of murders for example are the result of either domestic violence or arguments, not kidnapping and torture followed by murder or targeted killings.
>Someone who commits murder due to domestic violence is not likely to score high on a psychopath test
You realize lack of impulse-control is a hallmark of sociopaths?
It's also a characteristic of ordinary people in some circumstances. Sociopaths aren't just reckless. They're manipulative, cunning, and generally incapable of remorse or admitting their guilt.
Psychopaths are far more likely to do it
>Sociopaths aren't just reckless. They're manipulative, cunning, and generally incapable of remorse or admitting their guilt.
While this can be true, many sociopaths are not manipulative or cunning, although they do lack remorse. A lot of them are fearless because they are convinced they can get away with their crimes (and of course, most often they cannot)
But they're uncommon enough and violence is common enough that a given person who's done something violent is still not likely to be a sociopath.
I have given abolitionists the benefit of the doubt and read their writings and asked them directly, and they literally do not have any concrete ideas of how their society would function. It's a feelings-based movement.
These are the same people that don't believe IQ is a valid predictor of success. And even if they do, they deny that it's heritable. Genetics are not a factor in their worldview.
Idealy, police should be done by the citizens themselves. At least, policeman should be elected.
it's Leninist praxis, weaken the State and have Party-operated institutions come in and fill the gap. That's the goal.
aka nothing changes. You now have "the people's police" which is exactly the same, perhaps even more oppressive.
Police in their modern conception, in the UK were introduced in 1829, after being trialled for like, a decade (notably it was incredibly unpopular with the public, who saw it for what it was, an opportunity to give the government power for a de-facto military occupation of their community).
Society doesn't exist because it's existence is heavily enforced at gunpoint, and the natural state of humanity isn't warlordism and anarchy, the natural inclination of humans is forming community, and these communities are upheld by the mutual consent and enforcement of it's members, dictatorial regimes lean so heavily on police forces and military power because they cannot rely on that mutual consent between the governed and the government, this something fundamental i fail to understand in conservative thought, if Man at his base is just a rabid animal, and society is an exercise purely in self restraint and enforcement from members above someone in the hierarchy, how did any of this start to begin with?
>Police in their modern conception, in the UK were introduced in 1829,
That's because of the development of urbanism. You saw something similar in Edo. They usually hired commoners (basically unaccountable vigilantes) to do policing. Before official police were introduced they had a similar system in London actually but with the official police system the enforcers could actually be regulated.
London was an urban center way, way before 1829, Dick whittington was written in like, 1602 and the guy it's about lived in like 1402
I just want them defunded so I can lynch suspected pedos, rapists, thieves, journalists, businessmen, politicians, and killers.
>b-but that's a reign of terror
Yes. I want to kill those people and make them live in fear. Police only exist to protect them.
>you guys think the screaming will stop soon?
>god I hope so, so rude
gem on the log doe
gemmy