On a police-free world

With the latest clashes between American and their also-American law enforcement, there’s a talk of #AbolishThePolice which I think is a good idea worth considering but after reading the proposed suggestion, I think the critical point is being missed – the problem isn’t with the label “police” – it’s with its approach and with its patrons. Calling it “social workers”, “neighbourhood-watch” or even “local militias” isn’t what’s going to make it better.

The patrons for the monopoly of violence

We have been raised believe the police’s duty is “to maintain law and order” but I think it’s actually “law and social order”. Even “to serve and protect” is a bad motto (serve who? protect what?). It’s not about justice, righteousness or even fairness; it’s not about human lives or human rights and it’s definitely not about the welfare, safety and livelihood of the citizens. If a respectable establishment treats people poorly and pushes them to steal in order to survive, the police will side with the establishment, blaming the victims in their fault to get into that situation to begin with. The police sides with the establishment, and for a simple reason.

According to my “Big Stick theory” the person who makes the decisions is the one with the biggest stick, regardless of what that stick is – be it money, guns or even “harmless” charisma. And this fallible person, along with her/his cronies are in control of the “police”, which is the only authority that is allowed to exercise physical force against ordinary citizens. And to my dismay, I find this theory to be unavoidable.

Abolishing the police in favour of a green-washed alternative

The police abolition vision considered a few typical scenarios and re-envisioned how can they be handled in a police-free world, from loitering and traffic violations to drug-abuse and domestic abuse. Its underlining premise was that people don’t want to commit crimes and can be helped with the right amount of compassion and understanding to their reason for their turn to become criminals.

I think it’s a very naive approach that ignores scenarios of people who wouldn’t know better, or people who commit crime for any other reason than desperation. The reason people are fined with broken brake lights is because some people don’t care they’re risking their own lives and the lives of others. And whether the law-enforcement is police is or a different green-washed name is completely meaningless.

The police-abolition movement would argue that people who don’t know better other than expressing the rage through violence shouldn’t be put in prison rather than a correction-facility. But that isn’t simply brand-washing the existing facilities – it’s about changing their goals, resource allocations and conditions. It’s less about punishing (which a lot of people find solace in, knowing their aggressors are being punished) and more about understanding and compassion.

Rebranding, mindset and allocations

I can understand why in some culture, police officers have gotten a bad reputation, where meeting an officer on the street will cause one to stress as opposed to feel safe. This trauma will be difficult to wash away so yes, the police establishment needs to regain the people’s trust. I don’t think that simply by changing the names from “police officers” or “cops” to “Jedi knights” is going to make the trust come back over night.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in complete agreement that the the current police-force (in many countries) as law-enforcement entity is wrong in many levels but I don’t think that simply abolishing while ignoring issues it handles today it will actually help. I don’t think the grass-root militias and not even local police run by mayor-loyalist is the solution. Let’s break down what I had in mind:

Redefine Crime

Most people don’t choose to be in bad situations in which they are forced to violate the law and sure, it’s the society’s responsibility to help them not to get into those situations in the first place, or help them out once they do or at least give them the tools and resources to avoid it the next time around. I believe it’s the law enforcement and justice system’s responsibility to be considerate towards that. This must raise the question – why do rich people commit crime? why do poor people? who should get more severe punishment?

Change the police’s box of tools

According to Vox, Police academies spend 110 hours on firearms and self-defence and 8 hours on conflict management. These are the told they’re given. This is what they know how to do. And that’s ok, unless you want them to cater and care for the community they serve. For that they’ll need better training in different tools. I might sound chauvinistic but I think that more compassionate female-officers can do wonders.

Change The Patrons

This is a very big question and I think it should be answered with care. Should the police be accountable the mayor? the governor? Should it be a privately-run service? I think it’s should be a city-level democratic decision to pick the chief of police, based on the plans their candidates offer – whether it’s more strict or more caring. Personally I would elect a chief who would promise to deploy more social workers than soldiers, but I’m sure other people will think differently. I think that a political relation between the chief and the mayor can lead to corruption, while private initiatives can lead to even worse things.

Mitigate the violence

A friend of mine lived in a commune in which it was common to have your car borrowed with notice. Some people have a different sense of ownership. They’re not thieves, as you’re more than welcome to borrow their car just the same. Thieves do believe in ownership, but they believe the right for ownership isn’t an innate right, rather is a function of strength (and the ability to guard what is yours). Some people only understand power (and violence is a subsidiary). Yes, we should reduce violent starting at the education system; yes, we should reduce the need for crime by stirring away from an exploitative capitalist system; yes, we should reduce the amount of violence in the media and the institutionalised violence (acted primarily by the police); yes, we should discourage violence however we can (personally I’m still wondering if it’s ok to hit someone for making a racist remark) but even if we could enforce it (and I don’t think it’s right, pluralistically nor democratically, to violently force people who understand only violence into non-violence culture), you’ll still going to have some crazy fanatics to deal with. And yes, we can reduce the police violent attitude by 99% and that’s something we should be thriving for, but I don’t think we should be naive to think the police can abolished.