Imagining a society that isn't dominated by police

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/policing-is-a-dirty-job-but-nobodys-gotta-do-it-6-ideas-for-a-cop-free-world-20141216

by dollaaron • 12 years ago

117 74 12 years ago

rollingstone.com

omgtehblackbloc• 12 years ago

Someone had to say it.

Zigurd5• 12 years ago

Two more ideas:

Bonding tip-of-the-spear employees of the criminal justice system: cops, prosecutors, parole officers, prison guards. That way you can do away with qualified immunity, municipalities are not on the hook for paying settlements, and thugs price themselves out of the system.

Special prosecutors for police crimes.

vutekst• 12 years ago

I don't really understand the first proposal, can you expand on that? How would it do away with qualified immunity etc?

Zigurd5• 12 years ago

Qualified immunity protects the state against out of control claims. Bonding these employees up front means there can be no surprises about liability.

jessriedel2• 12 years ago

I haven't heard anyone suggest the bonding idea, and it seems very sensible. Is this discussed/criticized anywhere?

Zigurd5• 12 years ago

Not that I know of, though it seems like such a simple idea that someone must have thought of it.

girvo• 12 years ago

Fascinating idea, do you mind expanding on it?

Zigurd5• 12 years ago

The idea is to protect governments from settlement costs while creating pricing signals for over-aggressive cops, prosecutors, etc. AND enabling victims to get compensation.

There seem to be too many cases of bad prosecutions, and, as it is now, the victims usually get screwed.

stevebot• 12 years ago

They recently created uniforms for the Seattle Police department here. Its nebulous what they hope to accomplish with the added surveillance and personally it freaks me out.

I'm not saying were an Orwellian police state but at least we are headed that way.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

My impression is that most people want the police to wear cameras so they have something more objective than the officer's verbal assertion when disputes arise - where they've been deployed, such cameras seem to lead to a reduction in complaints because officers know their behavior is being recorded.

lotharbot• 12 years ago

It's two sided -- officers behave better because they're on camera, and people make up fewer false accusations because they know they were on camera.

My city (Denver) passed a law mandating body cameras for police during the last election. It'll probably be a year or two before we get data on how well it's worked.

KevinEldon2• 12 years ago

Also the person the officer is speaking with knows their behavior is being recorded.

dllthomas• 12 years ago

One concern I have about cameras is if the police get the opportunity to review the footage before testifying, and others don't. I think that would be a significant shift of power toward the police, though it may still curtail some of the most extreme abuses.

kuni-toko-tachi• 12 years ago

Imagine a society not dominated by main stream media. That is much more important. Control the ideas and dialogue, control the people.

angersock• 12 years ago

I think that that's a great talking point, but from a very practical perspective the solution is to get people to question their media (social, main stream, or otherwise) carefully. Simply removing the big channels won't fix anything.

More importantly, though, it's still just a talking feel-good point: the fact of the matter is that if a cop can blow a hole in your baby with a flashbang during a no-knock warrant it doesn't matter a hoot in hell what news you subscribed to.

I wouldn't put these on the same level at all.

tormeh2• 12 years ago

the solution is to get people to question their media

That's contrary to human nature. The solution is to make the media independent of outside interests. The simplest would be to ban all media employees from outside commercial activity, ban investment in media from non-media companies and ban advertisement. Alternatively advertisement could be allowed as long as the money is paid equally to all media, and the ads are randomly allocated.

Third alternative is to have a responsible government channel that competes with the commercial ones, funded by tax money and independent like a central bank. That, however, would require a reasonably decent government to begin with. This model actually works pretty well in many countries.

SwellJoe5• 12 years ago

I believe we're beginning to see that happen, slowly. Younger folks tend to get their news from their friends on facebook, twitter, etc. Mainstream media sources are toward the late stage of the conversation rather than the beginning and end. I don't know that it's necessarily improving things, in that a lot of Fox News style bullshit gets passed around in the form of photos with inaccurate captions, etc. But, "mainstream" it is not.

Then again, the dialogue is still being controlled for enough of the population that the state line gets reproduced by a large number of people, possibly even the majority of people, in most instances where the state interests are at stake. Even seemingly without mainstream media, the message is well-controlled.

Some recent examples of a large percentage of people seemingly buying into the state story without question that I found unnerving: "North Korea was definitely responsible for the attack on Sony" (despite many technically savvy people having serious questions about that), "Michael Brown was definitely in a rage and running into a hail of bullets toward an armed police officer when he was killed" (despite significant evidence to the contrary), "Eric Garner wouldn't have been killed if he had just obeyed the law; it had nothing to do with his race", "Tamir Rice pulled a gun on cops" (despite video contradicting this claim).

MarkMc• 12 years ago

I like the mainstream media. I certainly trust the New York Times or The Economist much more than my Facebook or Twitter feed.

xnull2guest• 12 years ago

But how tall a hurdle is jumping your Facebook or Twitter feed, really? IMHO these (NYT, Economist) outlets are lukewarm at best.

If you'll allow a digression, even if you do think the new media is working reasonably well, let's work together to enumerate what some of the problems are with big media that, if they were addressed, would make them better:

1.) News readership (consumer) not the source of funding, sponsors and advertisers are

2.) Most large media outlets have been bought by other corporate interests

3.) Changing technology and culture has created a void of long format messaging (and the death of usual distribution channels - which maybe is a good thing?)

4.) Government drastically improved symbiotic working relationship with media, challenging its role as an effective Fourth Estate

5.) News media outlets routinely surveilled and journalists legally challenged on big stories, chilling knowledgeable informants and would be whistleblowers

6.) Political and legal barriers and costs of investigative journalism high, demand and compensation low

7.) Fundamental lack of reporting and self-reporting on media organizations themselves

8.) Lack of competition due to 'enshrined' reputations and primetime due to trust relationships with content services - plus girth of production in long tail (and in major suppliers) of low quality, uncorrected, inaccurate, misleading, politicized, propogandized, or unprofessional work due to lowered costs of production

9.) 'Gamification' of the consumer for views (thus dollars) - including the short media attention span, use of talking heads, scare media, infotainment, eccentric coverage of irrelevancies, invention of false controversies

(More welcome)

Certainly Facebook and Twitter aren't editorialized and are subject to and gamed by social media optimization. (They also don't address any of the problems listed above.) Facebook and Twitter are essentially the same as relying on rumor and heresay (nearly by definition). And we know they are heavily propagandized.

jessriedel2• 12 years ago

Another one: Any time an agency of the government collects a fine to deter bad behavior, the money must be given to another agency that is significantly removed from the decision making process that sets the fine, or to charity. Likewise for seized goods, etc. If the county police department starts writing more tickets for rolling stops, the money just ends up with the parks department. (Obviously it is possible in principle for different agencies to collude, but the same can be said about all checks and balances. The point is to make coordinating the collusion difficult/dangerous.)

People can complain all they want about individual instances of civil forfeiture or predatory red-light cameras, but those sorts of issues are all caused by the incentives induced when the agency that enacts the fine benefits from the money collected.

(This does not apply to the separate penalties/restitution used to compensate victims, pay for fixing actual damage, etc..)

If some agencies are currently dependent on revenue through fines, then this requires a one-time adjustment to their budget. But this is good as it just means that the cost of running their agencies becomes more transparent.

ashark• 12 years ago

I think traffic and parking fines should fund public transportation.

chrishynes2• 12 years ago

That sounds like a good idea on the surface but it doesn't actually discourage anything. If the revenue is getting into government at all it still has the same perverse incentives.

Case in point: the many small towns that get a substantial chunk of their overall revenue from fines and police action --https://www.google.com/search?q=town+police+revenue

redacted• 12 years ago

I think the better way would be that such fines are sent straight to a national/federal agency, which in turn disburses the fund across the entire country as needed. That would prevent any corrupt small-town police force from simply fining people to raise money because they may never see any of it themselves.

WalterSear• 12 years ago

Those revenues aren't going to an agency that is removed from the situation.

The revenues should be going to the state, or the federal level. Or simply removed from circulation

tim333• 12 years ago

The article seems pretty US focused. There are a lot of countries out there that are less police dominated that could be used as examples. In the UK where I am the policing is fairly light. It would be hard to say society is dominated by it outside a few bad areas where gangs stab each other so the police have to intervene. I was last stopped by the police about 20 years ago for driving 130mph in a 70 limit and let off with a warning.

kasbah• 12 years ago

I have witnessed very heavy handed policing of peaceful protestors and squatters here in the UK.

At the same time I know of cases of people being imprisoned that should be receiving psychiatric care instead; so point 6 in the article struck me especially.

alextgordon• 12 years ago

The police seem to treat protestors much worse than anybody else, which makes me think such heavy-handed tactics are a response to pressure from above.

The government(s) have shown a consistent disregard for freedom of assembly.

username223• 12 years ago

Yeah, it's a bit different here. The last time I was stopped was a few years ago for having a burnt-out brake light in Nowheresville, Wyoming. The cop probably didn't like my dirty car and out-of-state plates, but my paperwork was in order, and I'm a harmless-looking white dude, so I got away with mild harassment and a warning.

poulsbohemian2• 12 years ago

This is really at the heart of the problem I have with the American approach to policing - everything becomes a police issue. Your tail light is out. Does the cop: a) tell you your tail light is out and to have a nice day and drive safe or b) demand license and registration, take 10 minutes to run a complete background check, insult you for having the tail light out, threaten to search the rest of your vehicle, and finally get around to giving you a ticket so that they can meet their quotas and fill their coffers.

Drugs: we treat it like a policing issue, other countries treat it as a social and health issue.

Immigration: we turn it into a policing deal when really its an economic and social system matter.

Gangs: our cops talk tough on the nightly news and the newspaper, but really this is directly tied to the drug and immigration problem and is again, and economic problem of when you have disfranchised young men.

Even a lot of the speeding and traffic problems are really cases of poor civil engineering and traffic management, but we "fix" them through a convenient policing trick that also generated revenue without raising anyone's taxes visibly.

Homelessness, especially due to mental illness? Let's make laying on the sidewalk illegal so we can turn a social problem into a police issue.

So in short, our US system turns things into policing issues because you know, fixing the real problems would be tough.

enobrev• 12 years ago

I'm not necessarily "anti-police" but I do agree that treating "criminal" behavior as a mental health issue rather than one to be handled by punitive measures is the best way forward.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

This is a huge problem in the US; lots of people have mental health problems but there are very few votes in trying to fix it. I've gone on at length about this before so I'll just offer these two links for people who want to get up to speed on the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/w...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-...

tomp• 12 years ago

No need to "imagine" it. Just come to Europe. I can recommend either the UK or Slovenia based on personal experience, cops are completely domesticated. Portugal, Germany or Netherlands if you want decriminalization. Switzerland for direct democracy. Most EU countries for treating the mentally ill.

tptacek2• 12 years ago

One of two places in the world I've been searched intrusively outside an airport, without warrant or probable cause: Switzerland (my wife used to live there). The other place: also in Europe.

I'm sure Europe is much nicer if it's evident that you're from whatever country you're in.

(Not exactly on point, but, whatever: the TSA has nothing on Heathrow international terminal for intrusive, pointless, rude searches).

poulsbohemian2• 12 years ago

My family came from Switzerland about 200 years ago, and our name is recognizably Swiss. I actually got my passport temporarily confiscated and went through an interrogation about 20 years ago (before 9/11/2001) because they didn't believe I was an American. The fact that I was speaking to them in German was used as evidence against me - because how on earth would an American know German? I giggle at the idea that my ancestral home interrogated me, but the border guards when I went to scary communist China or muslim Turkey barely opened the cover of my passport before they passed me through. But really the worst I've ever been treated was coming back into the US from Canada...

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

People here in the US are always astonished when I point out that many European police officers don't carry any weapons, eg the typical UK or Irish police officer just carries a baton. Of course guns are available they're not regarded as an everyday necessity. I grew up with the concept that police officers were there as much to help people find their way around as to deal with crime.

tptacek2• 12 years ago

On the other hand, the police in Italy openly carry submachine guns.

I think there's a lot of post-hoc fallacy in comparisons between US and EU policing. There's certainly a problem in the US, but it's probably nowhere near as simple as "US police carry guns".

te_platt• 12 years ago

There have been a lot of different ways to make and enforce laws through history, each with their particular costs and benefits. For a review of several I recommend this work (in progress) by David Friedman.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy...

mikerichards2• 12 years ago

As long as we have a society dominated by government, we'll have a society dominated by its enforcement agents.

krapp2• 12 years ago

This brings up the inevitable question of what you would have society be dominated by, if not government?

rayiner3• 12 years ago

I don't know why this is always posed as some sort of hypothetical or thought experiment, as if we don't have ample empirical evidence. Before modern nation-states emerged, we had feudal war lords in charge. When you overthrow nation-states, as in Afghanistan or Iraq, the feudal war lords return to power. Those are the two options.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

Another suggestion: abolish the practice of 'perp walks' and police publication of mugshots. They badly prejudice the right to a fair trial, the government is under no particular obligation to release that information until someone comes up for trial, and they're a grotesque infringement on the privacy and dignity of arrestees, many of whom are never even charged with a crime.

kenesom1• 12 years ago

Disarming most police patrols would be an excellent start. Most of the violence committed against innocent civilians is perpetrated by the police. In major cities like Los Angeles, "no criminal organization kills as many people as the police.” [1]

[1] http://www.fatalencounters.org/shocking-police-homicide-perc...

kahirsch• 12 years ago

Most of the violence committed against innocent civilians is perpetrated by the police.

That sentence is completely different from "no criminal organization kills as many people as the police." While it is shockingly high, 3 to 8 percent is not 50%.

EDIT: Also, the majority of police victims are probably not "innocent" civilians, but armed, violent criminals.

ChristianBundy• 12 years ago

...the majority of police victims are probably not "innocent" civilians, but armed, violent criminals.

Citation needed.

andyl• 12 years ago

I want to patrol my own streets like I want to grow my own food, or supply my own home energy.

No thanks. People who provide these services do a better job than I ever will. I'm thankful that they are there, so I can focus all my energy on writing software.

SwellJoe5• 12 years ago

The article makes several suggestions, and only one of them is "community patrols".

akira25012• 12 years ago

Yes, but it starts with the premise that these are alternatives. If anything, I think these are things that are good in _addition_ to our current system, but as a replacement I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.

Further, I take issue with the whole notion of the United States being a society "dominated by the police." It looks like we have just the right amount[1], so it seems to me that the issue is lack of training, accountability and open reporting combined with effective police review that are likely to be our problems.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

dclowd99012• 12 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't police start as community patrols, then were legitimized when they had to start employing deadly force in order to keep other more organized and dangerous groups at bay? (mobs, gangs, etc)

KevinEldon2• 12 years ago

If you don't like police in your community elect officials (or get elected yourself) to stop paying for them. If you don't pay the cops they will not show up. I assume many of the commenters on this post have some advantages that would aide in persuading the local citizens of the benefits of transferring funds for police to education, mental health care, tax reduction, or whatever.

simonmd2• 12 years ago

I don't have to imagine it, It's called Colombia, where the Police is at best ineffective, and it's fxxxxing anarchy.

So let's imagine instead if the liberal media in the USA had global context instead of complaining because you have a functional police force with a few problems that need correcting.

tl;dr First world problems boohoo.

Zigurd5• 12 years ago

have you been to Columbia?

simonmd2• 12 years ago

Have I? I live there. ColOmbia

ende• 12 years ago

A few problems? We have something between a state sanctioned fascist subculture that hates minorities and an organized crime syndicate.

Burn it to the ground and start over.

mieses• 12 years ago

Are you talking about Colombia?

mc32• 12 years ago

I can certainly imagine the proposed alternatives. I personally don't think they'll solve the behavioral issues in society at large. They likely would reduce the amount of policing and supplement traditional policing, but I don't think it'll eliminate the need. It's not as if all countries conspired and said, let's all have a police force!

I think the policing grows out of necessity. It's not as if there aren't lawless places where there is either little police or no police. Those places exist, for the most part, most people would choose to live in a different place where there are decently funded police. I'm not saying 'militarized' police are necessary or desired, but i think large societies need a force (people or robotic) which enforce the rules (reasonable/constitutionally sound) out by the population at large. Maybe a robotic force would be more impartial than people personafying the police force....

Imagining a society that isn't dominated by police

Related Stories