Good article.  Link left cold since it is USAToday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/21/abolishing-police-unworkable-1960-s-communes-2020-cities-column/3216029001/

Don't abolish the police. It didn't work for 1960s communes and it won't work for us.

History and human nature give us good reasons to avoid a reform path of abolishing the police. But it is gaining ground, and not just on the fringe.

Abolishing and defunding the police have become rallying cries in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. Are they “outlandish” or “nonsense,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said? Just a case of wackiness gone wild in the emotion of the moment?

I think not. Calls for dismantling police are a central part of a larger movement to abolish today’s authoritarian punishment-centered system. There is strong and growing academic support for the view that “the institution of criminal punishment is ethically, politically and legally unjustifiable.” The abolition of police is a logical extension of the growing movement to abolish prisons.

History and human nature give us good reasons to avoid such a reform path. But it is gaining ground, and not just on the fringe.

“We don’t need another training program,” says ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. “We need to defund the budgets of these police departments.” A veto-proof majority of Minneapolis council members has declared their intent to "dismantle" and “abolish” the city’s embattled police agency and to build an alternative model of community-led safety. One group, A World Without Police, wants to replace police “with systems of community safety and conflict resolution.”

No-punishment communes have failed

What is the alternative to a system of coercive enforcement through police and prisons?  As New York University Professor David Garland explains, a society that “intends to promote disciplined conduct and social control will concentrate not upon punishing offenders but upon socializing and integrating young citizens — a work of social justice and moral education rather than penal policy.”

Not only is the abolition of coercive enforcement an established idea with growing support, it is an idea with historical roots and, perhaps even more importantly, an idea that some groups have taken beyond imagination to real-world application. In the magical years of the 1960s social revolution, idealists established anti-punishment communes. They sought to prove to the world that people could live together in an open society that maximized personal autonomy while protecting the rights of others. As I wrote in my 2015 book, “Pirates, Prisoners and Lepers: Lessons from Life Outside the Law,” their foundational principle was the prohibition of coercive enforcement of rules.

One of the most famous of these non-punishment communes was Drop City, established in May 1965 on six acres of scrub land outside of Trinidad, Colorado. The commune became a rich incubator for artistic and social creativity, including the development of geodesic domes made from junk car hoods as living quarters. Open to all, there were no formal enforced rules, but it was entirely appropriate for a member to complain to another about how the person’s conduct hurt others.

Things went well for a while but finally a new member, Peter Rabbit — most residents took new names — followed his own mind and dismissed others’ complaints. He took the absence of enforcement as an opportunity to promote his interests at the expense of others. As members increasingly resented his open thievery and their helplessness in the face of it, they stopped cooperating and the commune collapsed.

As Drop City was disbanding, a different group established a no-punishment commune at Black Bear Ranch in Siskiyou County, California. They too began with no enforced rules, but after a series of fights, outbreaks of hepatitis and a growing proportion of freeloaders, formal rules were adopted and enforced by required appearances before the community for open discussion. If the coercion of social stigmatization was ineffective, the offending member was expelled. Of course, in the larger society, expulsion is not an option. Its practical equivalent for segregating the offender from the community is imprisonment.

Black Bear commune’s adoption of a coercive enforcement system saved it, and it continues to exist today. All no-punishment communes, like Drop City, have failed.

Unfair enforcement must be fixed

While they were ultimately unsuccessful, it is hard not to admire the social pioneering spirit of the Drop City creators and the many other action-oriented idealists. Notice, however, that they did not seek to impose their personal ideology on everyone else, but instead meant to lead by example as a means of persuading others.

Unfortunately, some of the current police and prison abolitionists have no such modesty or respect for others’ views. They have determined that their view is the “right” view and entitles them to force everyone to repeat the failed experiments of the past.

Dismantling mechanisms of coercive enforcement is not a wacky idea, but neither is it a successful one. Whether we like it or not, human nature is such that coercive enforcement of rules is indispensable to protect the rights of all. Obviously, the way in which this coercive enforcement is currently undertaken must be improved and, equally obviously, past reform programs have been inadequate. And don’t mistake the seriousness of the problem. Just as a society can undermine its cohesion by failing to have effective enforcement, so too can cohesion be seriously undermined by enforcement regularly seen as unfair and unjust.

Rather than wasting time and energy and increasing divisiveness by rushing down the dead end of dismantling police, let’s just cut to the hard work of making criminal enforcement something that’s fair enough and just enough to make us proud.

Paul H. Robinson is Colin S. Diver Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and co-author of “Crimes That Changed Our World: Tragedy, Outrage and Reform.”

Obvious result is obvious.

That said, I live in a part of Pennsylvania that has no Police Department.  The state cops do cover but police on a way different level than the locals would.  Twenty minutes would be fast response time for the PASP.  All that said?  Us hicks are armed to the teeth and crime is near non-existent.

Never mind whether the thesis is correct or not, they are actually putting former convicts in charge of their solutions. Many of these "community resolution" committees, or whatever they call them, are run by former felons. I really can't see that as a recipe for success.

Same here. But you would be lucky to see them under an hour. We watch our neighbors and they watch ours. If there is a problem while away I have people I will call. They will be armed if that is needed. Most likely the police will only be needed if a report is necessary.

I understand there are people calling for complete dismantling of police.  I realize that is real movement.  

I completely disagree with that notion.  

I would get behind some specific issues for police reform.

Is Qualified Immunity the root cause?  (of bad behaviour, resulting in the defund the poleeece movement)

Should Qualified Immunity be amended to "qualified immunity under very strict circumstances"?  

Without criminal punishment like, for example, five years for stealing a tractor, the choices become only life or death.

We will be the wild west once again

Rate of Crime Believed Lower In Albuquerque's Police Strike

1975

That was a brief moment not a long term experiment. This is what happens when Law and Order break down. A Warlord emerges and the Survival of the Fittest/Best Armed takes over

Are you that fooled by the media? Has our education system seriously failed you that badly? Shitty people who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions is the root cause combined with politicians seeking political points for pretending to care and subsequently seeking no accountability for a certain demographic.

Qualified immunity does not shield bad officers who do criminal things from the consequences of their actions....nor should it.

Educate yourself instead of being the typical stupid arfcommer.

That’s garbage “journalism” and so long ago.....guess some things never change......

I’ll give you a little hint....crime “lowers” when it’s not reported. Colleges have known this for years. Want to raise enrollment? One way (out of many) is to lower your crime rate as low as possible so you can tell mommy and daddy their precious child will be safe on campus. So, campus cops are routinely told to NOT look for crimes and under report those crimes that are actually reported to them.

Largest city in my jurisdiction has been reporting lowering crime for the past few years. The problem is, it’s all a big lie. The citizens are upset about the crimes occurring in their areas but the powers that be keep telling people that everything is ok and crime is dropping. Eventually, the citizens give up and stop reporting crimes because nothing gets done.....and like magic, crime rates “fall”.

If you believe the crime stats coming out of big cities you are a fool. The real crime rate in many big cities is much higher than is being reported.

A rigorous study if I ever saw one.

Take a look at our most recent “experiment” in Seattle.  CHAZ quickly got taken over by a “warlord”.

The reason so many arfcommers drool over the idea of no law enforcement is they think THEY will be the warlord. Of course, the typical fatass arfcommer won’t be a warlord....

Yeah.....anyone who seriously quotes that train wreck of an article to prove anything has issues........

Yes.  Illegal is illegal.  

What you said plus the dubious asset forfeiture, no knock warrants, the heavily “militarized” police forces now.

QFT

We know you hate cops.  You've made your position clear before.  In case you haven't noticed, this is the BOTS forum.  Hint...it's full of cops.  

Anytime you hear someone use the term "heavily militarized" when referring to American law enforcement, you know you are talking to someone who doesn't know a thing about what they are spewing from their mouth.

I will agree with this though..."Words fall from your mouth like shit from ass."

tldr,  it would work fine if most folks were mostly decent...

You know absolute nothing.  Link any thread that I’ve been disrespectful to law enforcement.   Any thread, any post by me.  Now make sure it’s against cops or law enforcement, not against an individual.   Hint, I don’t respect your opinion.  

If what you said is true, it’ll take you seconds to find.  

Don’t quote me, because we all know quotes can be altered.  Take a screen shot and link the thread.  

And just because you don’t understand something, don’t project your ignorance onto me.  

I’m sure you’ll come back and say you don’t have the time to search for a thread or some crap like that.

Doubt it.  Most folks are mostly decent.  

Quick search revealed the highest crime rate around 6%, Thats the highest.  Which means 94% of people are decent.  That’s a massive majority.  

Now without digging too deep, there may be under reporting of crime, or something along those lines. Also some of those crimes may have been the same individual.  

Point is, massive majority of people are good and law abiding.  Yet here we are.

Attached File

Actually, you can just leave this thread since you continue to try to cause problems.  

I can leave this thread.  No problem.

Thing is, you called me out and I bolded it above so you can’t miss it.  Prove your allegation, should be simple.  

I assume you are in law enforcement, so proving something that someone has done should be easy for you.  Especially after you accused them of it.  

Or you can apologize for mistaken identity and move on.  However.  We both know you can’t do that.  

You made a statement and can’t back them up, makes me wonder if any of your "facts" are just wrong opinions.  

Causing problems?   Far from it.   I do know I’ve gotten to you.  

If the criminal knows the victim is armed, he will not rob. If the criminal knows the victim can not fight back, he will rob, neat, rape and murder. If the criminal knows that if he is caught he will be executed, there is a more than 60% chance he will not commit any crimes. Deterrents work! Fear works. Deterrent in the form of an armed person is good. Fear of being executed is good too!

Yeah it doesn’t work. A week or so might be fine. You start getting into two weeks, a month? The wheels will come off. You don’t need to look far for examples. And those “warlords” that set up established rules and keep the new peace. Those are the old criminals but armed and organized.

The root problem is pay and training.

But, both of those cost more money than just having your insurance company make the occasional payout.

If you give a badly trained and unqualified person, the option of doing nothing, or trying to do his job (albeit badly at times) and getting sued or arrested, most are going to do nothing.   And, we're seeing that right now with skyrocketing murder and crime rates for 2020.

The answer is higher pay, and/or (at least) a lot more training.   Jocko Willick makes a good point that cops ought to be training one day out of five and suggests, would you rather have ten untrained cops on duty, every day, or eight very well trained cops on duty every day?   I'd go with the well trained eight.

But but but.....the death penalty isn’t a deterrent..........said every liberal



Society can’t function without rules. I know we have a bunch of anarchists on this site who would love to have no rules but the reality is, rules are necessary for society to function. I’d like to see less rules for us to enforce but there is always some citizen out there screaming for more laws. It’s almost like the people get the government they demand.....

You’re talking about a group defined by its poor impulse control. It’s hard to predict what fools will do.

What do you think the “qualified” in qualified immunity means?

The average patrolman in the US does not have access to a shoulder fired weapon.

There's a thought.  We should wall off some island somewhere and turn it into a penal colony.

Just need to make sure Air Force 1 never overflys it.

This could be resolved if only police were properly militarized like a European Gendarmerie.

Since we are so “heavily militarized”, I want to know why I can’t call for an air strike or artillery or even mortar fire.

Anyone who claims American law enforcement is “militarized” either knows nothing about the military or is just plain stupid.