I don't think you can separate the individual from the organization when the organization either fundamentally or in practice is engaged in negative/harmful activities. Policing is broken in the US, and though its original intention is good, the daily practice of it today is systemically flawed and no longer has the original intent as its goal.
The same applies to companies like Facebook and Google. They fundamentally exist to extract data from their users. They never had another legitimate mission that was corrupted over time, unlike the police. Apple, Netflix, Amazon at least have services that do not revolve around taking advantage of their users and manipulating their behavior.
Organizations are made up of individuals at the end of the day. If you are a cop or work at companies like Palantir, Google, Facebook, you are helping prop up organizations that actively do harm to many people. You may not be as responsible as cops that murder or decision makers at the top, but their guilt would not be possible without you. Please think long and hard about where you work and why you work there.
I agree with much of what you have said but you appear to be lumping all policing organizations together on the basis of some recent high-profile events. Many cops work in local departments serving communities across the US and we simply do not have data on how prolific (or not) these abuses are, nor do we have data on the natural background rate of human-on-human abuses with which to compare the current level of abuses with a hypothetical alternative (such as mafia rule).
This is akin to saying that all programmers are evil because of the actions of google et al.
Is there an appreciably significant number of police departments that are structurally not prone to these kinds of a abuses? And if there are, how many of them don't enable others who do?
Cop!=Programmer, cops integrate into one social function while programmers integrate onto many. The correct mapping would be public employee <=> programmer, or Raytheon weapons engineer <=> Soldier, for example. It really is the social function that is core to this argument.
The issue is not the social function though, it’s flaws in some police departments. Even on the left, there are very few who actually don’t want police around serving the function of stopping crimes when they occur.
It's not a flaw in some police department, it is a flaw in the social order that manifests itself in abuses by numerous police departments, but the seeds of that are present in essentially all of them.
Expressing the violence of the state is much broader than stopping crimes when they occur.
the coercive function in society is prone to abuse but that does not imply that all personnel engaged in the coercive function are complicit in what amounts to a criminal conspiracy.
> Cop!=Programmer, cops integrate into one social function while programmers integrate onto many. The correct mapping would be public employee <=> programmer, or Raytheon weapons engineer <=> Soldier, for example. It really is the social function that is core to this argument.
The social function that cops represent is the enforcement of laws and many of these laws are of a net benefit to society. it is an error to reduce the law enforcement function to brutality and expropriation when there are plenty of violent, malevolent, and larcenous individuals who are not police and still engage in socially undesirable behaviors.
Sure, I'd agree with you, if the cops only implemented the social function of enforcement. But they don't, they implement the social function of intimidation and violence writ large, as well as the social function of taking care of people in sensitive situation. This is a huge issue. Cops should do enforcement and enforcement only, and limit as much as possible their engagement in all other social functions.
Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state, as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line. As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution.
intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement.
the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence.
> Finally, joining the police force means willingly taking on the social function of violence and intimidation for the state
Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income.
> as well as forces you to engage in corrupt behaviour against the interests of society, the so called thin blue line.
I'm not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with.
> As long as these social functions and social constructs permeate law enforcement it will be a problematic institution, and once they aren't anymore it will be a tremendously helpful and appreciated institution.
respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible.
>intimidating people into following the law and enforcing the law with violence are part of the social function of enforcement. You can't arrest people who don't want to be arrested without the threat of violence and you can't deter them from engaging in criminal acts that benefit them without giving them a credible threat of enforcement.
You're making a huge leap. The social function of violence is very distinct from the social function of enforcing norms, even if the second sometimes requires the first. The police's function is not limited to enforcement of norms, the police are used to impose the violence of the state even when there is no norm to enforce. You can easily come up with examples yourself. Same for intimidation, the state intimidates people in much broader ways than what is strictly necessary to enforce laws.
The way to make the police not an inherently detrimental institution is to give the pure function of state violence (social violence = state violence assuming the state's monopoly of violence here, which we do because we are talking about social functions) to another organism, and then the police would only exert violence as little as possible and purely in order to enforce norms.
>the social function of handling sensitive situations is also inseparable to a large degree, and we already have social workers who handle this function when it can be separated. frequently police are called to a domestic violence report that where there has been no dv, or a neighbor trouble report where the neighbor causing the alleged trouble is mentally ill. there isn't always a way to know, and dispatching social workers to these incidents in the past has resulted in the social worker being a victim of violence.
The obvious solution is to put whoever fulfills the function of the social worker in control of someone who fulfills the function of enforcement or violence, depending on the type of situation (enforcement for a domestic violence call, social violence for, say, a suicide that might turn bad). As long as the other is fully subordinate to the person who fulfills the function of the social worker then the risk is minimized, and this is indeed what the people saying "defund the police" are asking for.
Also, while social workers are sometimes victims of violence, sending police first empirically leads to much, much more violence, on both sides.
>Indeed, and among the individuals who find this prospect attractive are some of the people who are also potential organized crime participants. Those people aren't going away, the best you can do is to channel their aggressive tendencies into a force for social good that is constrained by norms and incentivized by the prospect of a steady income.
Absolutely not, that is a very bad idea for two reasons.
First, there are much better ways to legitimately channel aggressive people that might join organized crime than the police force. Indeed, there are two avenues to do so - either you put them in a very structured, organized emplacement where there is an absolutely clear and unbreakable subordination of them to someone that does not exhibit such characteristics, and then allow them to use their aggressive tendencies for good, and the only institutions that fits that role are organizations like the National Guard, Military, and so on. The Police does not do so because there is no clear subordination of the enlisted/officer type, and what's more the penalties for overstepping the boundaries are incredibly light in comparison to those in the military.
The other solution is to channel them into something where there is absolutely no power over other people and very limited opportunities for violence. Manual labour positions do this quite well.
Putting those people in the police is a bad idea at every level and much less preferable than both options above.
>'m not convinced that this behavior would go away if you changed their uniforms. Organized crime has a long tradition and predates the beneficent social order we have fought to replace it with.
There is no such problem among enlisted members of the military. Organized crime should not operate with the hegemony of violence.
>respectfully, I suggest you articulate a way to enforce the law in a way that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence. I would be very interested in such a social order if it were possible.
There is no need to do, those that enforce the law should not be those that generally express the violence of the state. Their use of violence should be limited to the least amount possible at all to enforce norms. Again, the social function of violence is distinct from that of enforcing norms, even if sometimes norms must be enforced using violence, the general function fo state violence goes far beyond just that.
thanks for your detailed response and I'm not sure we will see eye-to-eye on this issue so please take this reply in the spirit of a quest for mutual understanding.
> The police's function is not limited to enforcement of norms, the police are used to impose the violence of the state even when there is no norm to enforce. You can easily come up with examples yourself. Same for intimidation, the state intimidates people in much broader ways than what is strictly necessary to enforce laws.
This is a fact of the existence of an enforcement mechanism and not something that can be administratively eliminated. Of course people who have the power to coerce others use it to benefit themselves when they are able to. The solution is to confront this reality, articulate norms that bound this enforcement ability, and document and punish enforcers who transgress those norms.
> The way to make the police not an inherently detrimental institution is to give the pure function of state violence [...] to another organism, and then the police would only exert violence as little as possible and purely in order to enforce norms.
No, they wouldn't. They would continue to use the coercive function to their own benefit when they were able to do so with a reasonable expectation of escaping punishment for such.
> The obvious solution is to put whoever fulfills the function of the social worker in control of someone who fulfills the function of enforcement or violence, depending on the type of situation (enforcement for a domestic violence call, social violence for, say, a suicide that might turn bad). As long as the other is fully subordinate to the person who fulfills the function of the social worker then the risk is minimized, and this is indeed what the people saying "defund the police" are asking for.
I'm not sure what you're asking for, but social workers already abuse their powers, including the power of directing the police to take children away from their parents in situations where it is unwarranted but of personal benefit.
> Also, while social workers are sometimes victims of violence, sending police first empirically leads to much, much more violence, on both sides.
its not always clear that the social worker is indicated and the police are not. sometimes a mentally ill person accuses others of violence and sometimes other people report a mentally ill person as a threatening individual. In fact, sometimes a mentally ill person actually threatens or commits acts of violence. In the first two scenarios its not clear that it would be wise to dispatch a social worker in lieu of police and in the third situation its unwise to dispatch a social worker without police. Finally the line between a criminal and a violent and mentally ill individual is not clearly defined and so its not clear that social workers can effectively respond to reports of (potentially) violent individuals.
For example, just the other day two police responded to a domestic violence call, one officer is now dead, the other was wounded. These situations cannot all be solved by social workers and when you are a dispatcher it is not clear which ones can be.
> you put them in a very structured, organized emplacement where there is an absolutely clear and unbreakable subordination of them to someone that does not exhibit such characteristics,
these individuals do not exhibit characteristics that allow them to be selected and segregated, such a process would be equally (if not more) prone to abuse as the current system of armed police enforcing laws, and finally its likely that there are no clear divides between 'sheep' and 'wolves' but more likely a gradient. such individuals self-select according to the options presented and they are unlikely to choose such and option, and finally its unlikely that an individual who does not share those characteristics to some extent would be able to command their obedience.
> the only institutions that fits that role are organizations like the National Guard, Military, and so on. The Police does not do so because there is no clear subordination of the enlisted/officer type, and what's more the penalties for overstepping the boundaries are incredibly light in comparison to those in the military.
this is false (there is in fact a clear chain of command in the police, to include separation between 'officer' ranks and 'enlisted' type ranks) and secondly you seem to be ignorant of the very same abuses of authority and violence perpetrated by members of the military.
> The other solution is to channel them into something where there is absolutely no power over other people and very limited opportunities for violence. Manual labour positions do this quite well.
I see. how do you expect to dissuade them from pursuing violence and larceny on their own time?
> Putting those people in the police is a bad idea at every level and much less preferable than both options above.
We do not put them in police. They seek out those roles because of the opportunity to engage in sanctioned violence and if that behavior is not channeled into a social good it will become a social evil, as it already does for individuals so inclined who are not able or willing to join the police or military.
> There is no such problem among enlisted members of the military.
You are misinformed. [0] [1] [2]
> Organized crime should not operate with the hegemony of violence.
I agree but to call enforcement of laws "organized crime" is to imply a political theory that is not currently shared by many members of the republic (regardless of my own feelings on the subject). Societies that fail to penalize acts of violence and larceny tend to succumb to violence and larceny on a society-wide scale.
> There is no need to do, those that enforce the law should not be those that generally express the violence of the state.
This is, or appears to be, a contradiction in terms and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking you to explain how we are to enforce norms on people who do not subscribe to them without threatening violence.
> Their use of violence should be limited to the least amount possible at all to enforce norms.
Agreed.
> Again, the social function of violence is distinct from that of enforcing norms, even if sometimes norms must be enforced using violence, the general function fo state violence goes far beyond just that.
You are confusing the social function of violent enforcement with the abuse of that socially permitted ability by the individuals tasked with executing it.
[2] I'm not sure how many links it would take to make this point but there are more than enough readily available, please let me know if there is any doubt about members of the military committing violent crimes on and off duty.
By this poisoned well logic, you are responsible for any increase in crime that occurs from a reduction in policing. Adults that work for an organization which is critical to every civilization to date (law enforcement) work to fix it from the inside. Only immature people take the unethical stance that there should be no law enforcement because there are flaws in the current structure. Even in Minneapolis, the only thing the council can agree on is that “defunding the police” doesn’t actually mean taking away the police funding. Only a small anarchist percentage of the population wants nobody to actually be in the police.
> the daily practice of it today is systemically flawed and no longer has the original intent as its goal.
Care to say what the goal of the Boulder, CO police department is? How about the one for Waco? If the goal is not law enforcement, how does that square with the fact that people keep electing the heads of these orgs (Sheriff, Mayor, etc)?
Does defunding police increase crime? Police department budgets have absolutely ballooned in many places, but crime hasn't really dropped a commensurate amount. (In Seattle, police budget has increased over 33% in the past decade, while crime rates haven't moved.)
Reductions in policing are paired with increases in spending on community and social programs that address the root causes of crime rather than just punishing those who turn to it from necessity.
With the two combined, it's plausible that reducing police funding could actually reduce crime rates if the money was well invested elsewhere.
Depends on what defunding means. If it’s the textbook definition of stopping funds entirely [1], then it’s definitely going to increase crime. Only a fraction of criminals turn to it from necessity.
- The Kansas City mob is not operating out of necessity.
- The Mexican cartel is not operating out of necessity.
- Child traffickers are not operating out of necessity.
When someone hears their drunk neighbor beating his spouse, who should be called if there are no police?
Very few people think there should be 0 police officers or zero dollars towards policing. When a homicide happens or an arson happens, yes, there should be a department investigating and diving in.
Domestic violence could be responded to by people who are not police but are instead trained in dealing with this scenario. Domestic violence is generally handled poorly by police (who often struggle to find the aggressor, disbelieve the victim, show up armed and ready for additional conflict, etc.).
I'd much rather have a force that was trained in crisis intervention, drug abuse, and mental health, but who weren't also armed to the teeth, coupled with the prison system, and generally trained to think they are 'warriors'.
The same applies to companies like Facebook and Google. They fundamentally exist to extract data from their users. They never had another legitimate mission that was corrupted over time, unlike the police. Apple, Netflix, Amazon at least have services that do not revolve around taking advantage of their users and manipulating their behavior.
Organizations are made up of individuals at the end of the day. If you are a cop or work at companies like Palantir, Google, Facebook, you are helping prop up organizations that actively do harm to many people. You may not be as responsible as cops that murder or decision makers at the top, but their guilt would not be possible without you. Please think long and hard about where you work and why you work there.