Support NeoGAF

[Zoc]

What the hell at these responses. None of these ideas are insane. In fact, all of them have been shown to actually reduce crime and make the victims of crime more satisfied with the outcome. The title of this thread is stupid, but the ideas are anything but.

 

[potam]

Wow I just noticed this shit got published by Rolling Stone. I know they're not a shining beacon of journalistic professionalism, but I honestly thought this was a blog post.

edit: I think a lot of people are missing the decriminalization bit. The point wouldn't be to "reduce crime", but to not lock dude's up over some petty bullshit.

 

[Kinyou]

Lowering the crime rate by just making nothing a crime is pretty fucking stupid.

Yeah, that point confused me a bit.

 

[Lagamorph]

How isn't it sensible? The war on drugs is a huge failure. How about instead of locking up people for doing drugs, we funnel that money into rehabilitation instead?

Yeah. Legalising stuff like Crystal Meth is totally a sensible idea and production/distribution of it shouldn't be tackled at all.

 

[gerg]

I think this article's suggestions are actually quite sensible when considered as ways to complement policing, and to make criminal justice systems more effective, equal and fair (and, ultimately, to lower the amount of policing required overall), but the sensationalist title skews things a bit. Maybe I just lack the imagination to consider a world without government-funded police.

 

[Violet_0]

I want to know how #2 could be applied to the real world (aside from drugs-related offenses)

 

[Purkake4]

This is really dumb.

I also hope everyone understands that decriminalization means making things smaller offenses (usually punishable by fine) and not just making things legal.

 

[finowns]

Rolling Stone published this..?

 

[kirblar]

Rolling Stone published this..?

They also published the UVA story, so......

 

[Valnen]

I'm not, I have a family member that was incarcerated for doing drugs. Now they're clean. They have to stay clean for the next 6 years or they go back. I'm in favor of that.

The fuck? There is no good reason to lock someone in prison for doing drugs. I guess you must really hate this family member in question.

 

[GraveHorizon]

#2 + #5 =

 

[ProudClod]

Man, I love all the pseudo-intellectuals in this thread saying "can't work," without providing any sort of insight into their savant level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology.

 

[The Shogun]

What the hell at these responses. None of these ideas are insane. In fact, all of them have been shown to actually reduce crime and make the victims of crime more satisfied with the outcome. The title of this thread is stupid, but the ideas are anything but.

This is the real world. In the real world they do not work. In a country like the US please explain in detail how this would work.

Other than #6. It would result in chaos and murder everywhere.

 

[Fat Goron]

 

[Mr. Tone]

Like any work suggesting a radical change to the status quo, people immediately dismiss it as some kind of fairy tale that could never ever work, regardless of evidence.

 

[kame-sennin]

edit: I think a lot of people are missing the decriminalization bit. The point wouldn't be to "reduce crime", but to not lock dude's up over some petty bullshit.

I also think the article fails to clearly point out that eliminating capitalism is essential to this plan. Removing economic inequality dramatically changes the board with regard to crime motivation.

 

[Face it Tiger..]

I think this article's suggestions are actually quite sensible when considered as ways to complement policing, and to make criminal justice systems more effective, equal and fair (and, ultimately, to lower the amount of policing required overall), but the sensationalist title skews things a bit. Maybe I just lack the imagination to consider a world without government-funded police.

agreed.

 

[potam]

Man, I love all the pseudo-intellectuals in this thread saying "can't work," without providing any sort of insight into their savant level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology.

Well I have a 291 IQ and study psychology recreationally. You see, if you remove all cops, then you'll have people from a lower socio-economic standing with ambiguous morals who WILL STILL FUCKING SEE RICH HOUSES AS RIPE TARGETS. It's not as if they're gonna be like, "You know what? Robbing that house isn't against the law anymore. And it's not as if there's any cops for us to run from. Let's just go outside and play hopscotch."

I also think the article fails to clearly point out that eliminating capitalism is essential to this plan. Removing economic inequality dramatically changes the board with regard to crime motivation.

Eh, whatever. Minor details.

 

[The Technomancer]

6 is fine

5 is hugely problematic and what's weird is that the point acknowledges this and then just...dismisses those concerns?

1 through 4 all have the same problem: they seem to be thinking about small communities. This is the problem that I have with almost all of these "de-police/de-government/shrink the power structure" proposals: I really don't think they would work for major cities. Like, they might be awesome if you're dealing with a few hundred to a few thousand people

 

[ProudClod]

Well I have a 291 IQ and study psychology recreationally. You see, if you remove all cops, then you'll have people from a lower socio-economic standing with ambiguous morals who WILL STILL FUCKING SEE RICH HOUSES AS RIPE TARGETS. It's not as if they're gonna be like, "You know what? Robbing that house isn't against the law anymore. And it's not as if there's any cops for us to run from. Let's just go outside and play hopscotch."



Eh, whatever. Minor details.

And you honestly believe that the communities are just gonna be like "oh, well... Since there's no cops, nothing we can do now!"

That was kind of the point of the article. It presented some viable alternatives, most of which have been/are being used successfully. I think it's silly to assume that the only thing that'll work is the thing we have in place now.

 

[gerg]

I also think the article fails to clearly point out that eliminating capitalism is essential to this plan. Removing economic inequality dramatically changes the board with regard to crime motivation.

Sure. But I think it's naive to think that preventative measures could be so effective that we won't ever need a government-funded police service. Who, for example, would be tasked for dealing with someone who decides to kill another person in this capitalism-free utopia? You could argue that point six covers this scenario, in that (ideally) mental health services would be so effective that those whose condition would otherwise worsen to the degree where they would be a threat to others wouldn't reach that point, but what if those services fail? At one point the structure and purpose of the police might be significantly different from the police as they exist now, but there's a big difference between saying "six ideas or a radical police force" and "six ideas for a police-free world".

 

[The Shogun]

And you honestly believe that the communities are just gonna be like "oh, well... Since there's no cops, nothing we can do now!"

That was kind of the point of the article. It presented some viable alternatives, most of which have been/are being used successfully. I think it's silly to assume that the only thing that'll work is the thing we have in place now.

How in the actual fuck would a city like New York City operate with these rules. We are talking about MILLIONS of people living on top of each other.

It would never work. Its impossible.

 

[potam]

How in the actual fuck would a city like New York City operate with these rules. We are talking about MILLIONS of people living on top of each other.

It would never work. Its impossible.

wiki wil' wil' west

 

[Poodlestrike]

Man, I love all the pseudo-intellectuals in this thread saying "can't work," without providing any sort of insight into their savant level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology.

You don't really need a savant-level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology to see why this wouldn't work.

I also think the article fails to clearly point out that eliminating capitalism is essential to this plan. Removing economic inequality dramatically changes the board with regard to crime motivation.

Historically, eliminating capitalism has created a greater economic inequality, not a lesser.

 

[Magic Pancake]

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and I think one of the biggest problems is that one of the biggest problems with policing as it stands is the way that officers are selected. What if, instead of open recruiting where there's bound to be a degree of self-selection of bullies and such, instead officers are chosen for 2 year tours by Sortition? I know it's a crazy idea, but it would help with problems like where in Ferguson the police department was 95% white in a majority black town.

Or would the system just train them to work the same way?

ETA: To respond to the main thrust of the argument, what exactly is stopping the formation of a new de facto police force? They somewhat address this with point with 5, but this just seems like decentralizing policing, rather than removing it. I don't see how this doesn't devolve into a Hobbesian state of nature.

 

[Valnen]

Historically, eliminating capitalism has created a greater economic inequality, not a lesser.

Because human greed still exists, sadly.

 

[captmorgan]

And you honestly believe that the communities are just gonna be like "oh, well... Since there's no cops, nothing we can do now!"
.

Those communities would then set up some type of neighborhood watch or patrol. Then since you would need some specialized training you wouldnt be able to have a full time job outside of the patrol. So the communities would get together to pay this group of people. Then this group of people would need some kind of identification...like a uniform so other members would know who was specialty trained.

 

[DoktorEvil]

That's a really fucking stupid idea.

Decriminalized drug policy and better funding for mental health. The only 2 remnants of ideas I'm for.

Everything else is hogwash shit made to sell magazines.

 

[Scrooged]

Those communities would then set up some type of neighborhood watch or patrol. Then since you would need some specialized training you wouldnt be able to have a full time job outside of the patrol. So the communities would get together to pay this group of people. Then this group of people would need some kind of identification...like a uniform so other members would know who was specialty trained.

Yeah, totally not cops tho. And as a bonus, they'd be privatized!

 

[Poodlestrike]

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and I think one of the biggest problems is that one of the biggest problems with policing as it stands is the way that officers are selected. What if, instead of open recruiting where there's bound to be a degree of self-selection of bullies and such, instead officers are chosen for 2 year tours by Sortition? I know it's a crazy idea, but it would help with problems like where in Ferguson the police department was 95% white in a majority black town.

Or would the system just train them to work the same way?

3 big problems with that: 2 year terms aren't really long enough to become familiar with a community and the procedures of policing it, 2, a lof of the behaviors we dislike about cops are learned on the job (and not solely from pre-existing racists), and 3, I doubt people would agree to it.

 

[potam]

Those communities would then set up some type of neighborhood watch or patrol. Then since you would need some specialized training you wouldnt be able to have a full time job outside of the patrol. So the communities would get together to pay this group of people. Then this group of people would need some kind of identification...like a uniform so other members would know who was specialty trained.

And they'll need some sort of protection, in case they run into some really dangerous criminals.

 

[Zoc]

This is the real world. In the real world they do not work. In a country like the US please explain in detail how this would work.

Other than #6. It would result in chaos and murder everywhere.

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

 

[ProudClod]

6 is fine

5 is hugely problematic and what's weird is that the point acknowledges this and then just...dismisses those concerns?

1 through 4 all have the same problem: they seem to be thinking about small communities. This is the problem that I have with almost all of these "de-police/de-government/shrink the power structure" proposals: I really don't think they would work for major cities. But this is also kind of the problem with 5.

There's no reason as to why you can't just treat an urban city as an amalgamation of many such communities. There are already many such informal communities in urban areas, some of which span a dozen blocks, some of which can be constituted in a single large apartment building.

 

[Arc]

Some people's minds are so open that their brain falls out.

 

[Azulsky]

I'm behind #6

The rest i don't perceive as working from a gut instinct, but don't have evidence to refute them empirically.

I feel that inevitably you do have people who are just bad, and if they are not caught in a the #6 net you are going to need dudes with guns.

 

[diggmcbadass]

How about cops that don't resort to shooting people first time all the time? Cops here, up until they cried terror threats a few months back didn't even carry guns. I feel less safe now that they do.

 

[potam]

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

it's a good thing you presented two balanced, and likely scenarios in your argument

 

[ProudClod]

Those communities would then set up some type of neighborhood watch or patrol. Then since you would need some specialized training you wouldnt be able to have a full time job outside of the patrol. So the communities would get together to pay this group of people. Then this group of people would need some kind of identification...like a uniform so other members would know who was specialty trained.

Yes, precisely. But there are a few key differences.

1. They do not have to be armed.
2. Their main jobs will be protecting their neighbors, NOT upholding arbitrary laws created by politicians 3,000 miles away.
3. They will operate only with the support of their neighbors, and will be held accountable by the neighbors.
4. They will not be "above" the law, and will always be at the mercy of the community.

 

[kirblar]

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and I think one of the biggest problems is that one of the biggest problems with policing as it stands is the way that officers are selected. What if, instead of open recruiting where there's bound to be a degree of self-selection of bullies and such, instead officers are chosen for 2 year tours by Sortition? I know it's a crazy idea, but it would help with problems like where in Ferguson the police department was 95% white in a majority black town.

Or would the system just train them to work the same way?

Doesn't work because it's a high-risk profession that DQs a bunch of people already because they don't have the physical capacity/presence or mental stability for it.

Not that the current system does a great job on the latter- due to it attracting a nasty subset, but working towards better addressing that issue directly would be a much better way to go about things.

 

[potam]

Yes, precisely. But there are a few key differences.

1. They do not have to be armed.
2. Their main jobs will be protecting their neighbors, NOT upholding arbitrary laws created by politicians 3,000 miles away.
3. They will operate only with the support of their neighbors, and will be held accountable by the neighbors.
4. They will not be "above" the law, and will always be at the mercy of the community.

so...like cops?

 

[captmorgan]

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

C: The teenager and his friends beat the shit out of the unarmed man in normal clothing and takes his wallet. Then goes back to drinking.

 

[Poodlestrike]

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

C: Nobody ever finds the kid who robs your car, because no organized system of investigators is at work. You don't get your stuff, the kid gets off scott free, and he does it again. And again. And again.

 

[Scrooged]

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

B would not be the real world. Do you seriously think that just because these people are not officials of the government that they'd be free of bias, corruption and incompetence? What happens when these people in a town get bought by a company? Corporate sponsored keepers of the peace sounds like a great idea right? Or what if they decide to not operate in certain parts of town? Or hell, no one is there to do the job?

 

[captmorgan]

Yes, precisely. But there are a few key differences.

1. They do not have to be armed.
2. Their main jobs will be protecting their neighbors, NOT upholding arbitrary laws created by politicians 3,000 miles away.
3. They will operate only with the support of their neighbors, and will be held accountable by the neighbors.
4. They will not be "above" the law, and will always be at the mercy of the community.

Upholding what laws? The neighborhoods? So a community down south creates their own laws and upholds them themselves...were have I see that before?

 

[Enron]

From Rolling Stone? That bastion of journalistic excellence?

 

[ProudClod]

You don't really need a savant-level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology to see why this wouldn't work.

Care to offer up an explanation? Taking the failure of these ideas as a given (especially considering many of them have worked quite well in practice) without providing any sort of counter-argument is intellectually disingenuous.

 

[Purkake4]

1. Don't fucking patronize. We all live in the real world.

2. The US has more than its fair share of chaos and murder already. A lot of the ideas on this list would prevent crimes before they happen, rather than uselessly destroy lives after they happen.

Imagine your car is robbed by a teenager. Which of the following outcomes do you think is likely to be better for you, for the teenager, and for everybody else:

A: After being brutalized by the cops, who tack on a charge of resisting arrest when they barge into his house with flashbangs, he goes to court where he is sentenced to a few years in prison. You don't get anything you stole back. While in prison, he receives a comprehensive education in violence and crime, and after getting out, is blacklisted by every job he applies for.

B: An unarmed man in normal clothes, not there as an authority figure peacefully visits his house and informs him that although he's been caught stealing, he has the chance to avoid a criminal record if he faces you at a mediation hearing and offers restitution. You both go. He agrees to pay you back the value of what he stole, and also to join a crew keeping your neighborhood clean for a year. He can still go to school and can still get any job he qualifies for.

Your real world seems quite different from the one I'm stuck with. Also, at least over here we have an option for B (reduced sentence on agreement with the victim and paying restitution).

 

[potam]

Care to offer up an explanation? Taking the failure of these ideas as a given (especially considering many of them have worked quite well in practice) without providing any sort of counter-argument is intellectually disingenuous.

Let me ask you this: would you be willing to move to a city such as NYC for 1 year, if there were no cops? Would you go out at night?

 

[Crayons]

Yeah. Legalising stuff like Crystal Meth is totally a sensible idea and production/distribution of it shouldn't be tackled at all.

people aren't gonna start doing crystal meth because it's legal
just like people aren't gonna stop because it's illegal

 

[Gnome Scat]

That's a really fucking stupid idea.

Yep, except #6. Cops are good, but there will always be some bad apples.