If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution.

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution

Of course it does. You dissolve the police department and create a new one. New York did it twice, first replacing the city-controlled Municipals with the state-controlled Metropolitans [1], and then in 1870 creating the NYPD [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_riot

[2] https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/history/history-timeline...

▲

kortex 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> they respond by refusing to work. That's a ~~problem~~ solution that, at this time, has no ~~solution~~ problem.

If a police department reuses to accept accountability, and dig in their heels by refusing to work, "just" dissolve it. And while at it, half the calls could be handled by folks without guns.

In practice that obviously would not go over well, people are too attached to the status quo. We just lack the political will to rethink and retool the system (despite most Americans favoring police reform).

▲

NoImmatureAdHom 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>half the calls could be handled by folks without guns.

Let me point out that you must know which half before the fact for this to be of any use.

Sometimes you might be 95% sure no guns are required. Is that good enough? What does that buy you? 10% of calls?

▲

pstuart 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> half the calls could be handled by folks without guns

This can't be emphasized enough. A lot of enforcement and "civil order" work does not require guns, and in many cases (e.g., mental health crises), they're the wrong people to be engaged to resolve.

I think one of the biggest issues with policing is that they are supported by the "law and order" crowd, which is a euphemism for keeping "others" in their place.

I swear to god that "Defund the police" was an inside job to discredit police reform by turning it into an all or nothing proposition and that's not gonna fly.

Oakland CA has serious crime problems because there's "not enough" policing and a lot of people are emboldened to do all the crime they want because nobody's there to stop them. One of many articles on this: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-business-o...

I believe there are some fundamental changes to the system that could correct a lot of this:

1. End the War on Drugs. It's literally designed to create crime and it's low hanging fruit for cops to focus on rather than real crime.

2. Legalize and regulate sex work. Like drugs, this is a moral issue and by driving it underground it's designed to create more crime. Regulate and monitor the fuck out of it to minimize opportunities for sex trafficking. It's also a favored low-hanging fruit for cops to bust.

3. Use social workers for mental health emergencies and have the cops notified for possible backup

4. Invest in housing/mental health/rehab services and get the homeless off the streets

5. Revisit the legal system to avoid catch and release scenarios (though most of it is #1 and #2). If the cops are busting the same people over and over again that disincentives them to even bother

6. Fix qualified immunity and put some teeth into it. We should never simply take the officer's word for anything without some sort of proof (like leaving their body cams on).

7. Make the police self-insured backed by their pension fund. They have no skin in the game and municipalities pay out vast sums of money for the misdeeds of officers.

Easy peasy!

▲

ajmurmann 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I like this general list and I would add a shift from harder punishment to increased likelihood of getting caught. This means more cops, more prosecutors, more judges, more public defenders, less jail. Studies have shown that higher likelihood of getting caught and getting punished is more significant than a harsher punishment. However, I understand that right now incentives and finances are misaligned for accomplishing this. Much of the catch and release happens because there are not enough public prosecutors or jails are full.

	▲	pstuart 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh yeah that belongs too. The current "justice system" is really just a legal system that is designed to punish. Prisons are expensive and we would be better served helping keep people out of prison in the first place. It doesn't help that the private prison industry has extensive influence with legislators (as do the police and prison guard unions). More so, just shoving people out the gates after time served is almost like planned recidivism. Investing in rehabilitation, training, and guidance for those released would pay off for the public purse.

▲

pocksuppet 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In other countries, cops may carry guns, but if those guns are ever fired, there is an investigation to ensure it was fired for a very good reason. Those places still have cops.

They also have months or years of cop training, not weeks.

▲

mghackerlady 7 hours ago | parent [-]

They also teach the cops the law and ensure they're morally sound instead of unofficially endorsing breaking the law

▲

ajmurmann 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's crazy to me that becoming a police officer almost everywhere in the US is quicker than becoming a licensed cosmetician.

	▲	cucumber3732842 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Think about who's harmed by supply side constraints and artificially high prices. The government isn't hiring cosmeticians or plumbers or whatever in bulk. It's hiring cops. So it wants them to be cheap. The fact that they're scary thugs who could potentially be dumb and hot headed is a feature. Scares the peasants into compliance. It's a force multiplier basically. On the flip side the government is happy to enforce supply constraints for any random trade so long as it's not so absurd that it hurts the legitimacy of the government by making it look corrupt and making people resist it.

▲

cliglot 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The government has had no qualms in the past using the army or national guard to break strikes.

▲

stackskipton 9 hours ago | parent [-]

They don't strike, they just respond really slowly, pretend they didn't see something or just take reports and barely solve anything.

Since they are all unionized and replacing them is crazy slow and expensive, nothing happens.

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	g8oz 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yup, we saw it happen after the George Floyd/BLM protests. An undeclared work to rule action.

▲

saghm 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you're saying that the solution is RICO, because they're operating as a protection racket?

▲

kridsdale1 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Robots!