# Abolish the police? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2020, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205 "2020-06-07T17:22:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/261 "2020-06-13T06:05:06Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I believe the research literature generally shows that more police reduces crime but one wrinkle that I hadn’t known is that [apparently](https://www.nber.org/papers/w18815.pdf)more police reduces violent crime more than property crime. So yeah these proposals to cut police are foolish and will probably result in many more dead black people. I suspect they won’t be passed in most places but a few cities may be foolish enough to try and that will be damaging enough. I’m not surprised that just cutting the police raises violent crime, but the proposal at hand isn’t “fewer police but keep all other variables the same.” The argument is to **replace** the police with a whole suite of alternative measures - some of them preventative programs (e.g. providing free public housing, guaranteeing food security, etc), and some of them recovery programs (mental health counseling, social work, and so on). ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/262 "2020-06-13T06:10:16Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I’m not surprised that just cutting the police raises violent crime, but the proposal at hand isn’t “fewer police but keep all other variables the same.” The argument is to **replace** the police with a whole suite of alternative measures - some of them preventative programs (e.g. providing free public housing, guaranteeing food security, etc), and some of them recovery programs (mental health counseling, social work, and so on). Public housing has amplified crime, from Cabrini Green to Jordan Downs. People commit crime to get out of these places. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/263 "2020-06-13T06:10:19Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I’m not surprised that just cutting the police raises violent crime, but the proposal at hand isn’t “fewer police but keep all other variables the same.” The argument is to **replace** the police with a whole suite of alternative measures - some of them preventative programs (e.g. providing free public housing, guaranteeing food security, etc), and some of them recovery programs (mental health counseling, social work, and so on). I noticed you didn’t respond to my post upthread. What do you do with a Ted Bundy in this brave new world? Counsel him? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/264 "2020-06-13T06:12:56Z")
Of course it should be perfectly possible to increase funding on those programs and still keep the number of police the same. In fact the number of police should be probably increased sharply in high-crime areas along with community policing techniques that increase levels of trust between residents and the police. There are 16000 murders every year in the US and the primary focus of police reform should be to reduce that number. BTW I would like to see rigorous studies that show programs in public housing, food security etc lowering violent crime rates. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/265 "2020-06-13T06:23:33Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > BTW I would like to see rigorous studies that show programs in public housing, food security etc lowering violent crime rates. Didn’t we already do this? We have food stamps and section 8 housing. The crimes rates did not go down after that, they drastically increased. I’m not saying those programs were the cause, just that we’ve been there done that, and it didn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/266 "2020-06-13T06:35:17Z")
Well like you said there could other causal effects which is why I would like to see rigorous studies. But yes I would be skeptical that social programs reduce crime in any large way. BTW this is a good [article](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10981274/crime-violence-policies-guns)with a list of policies that reduce crime which appear to be based on good research. The six policies are: a)Stricter alcohol policies b)Hot-spot policing c)Focused deterrent policing d)Raising the age for school dropout e)Behavioral intervention programs f)Eliminate blighted housing Two of these involve policing which is another reason why proposals to cut policing are especially idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/267 "2020-06-13T06:39:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I noticed you didn’t respond to my post upthread. What do you do with a Ted Bundy in this brave new world? Counsel him? I’m going to quote Mariame Kaba again: > [@](#): > > There is. We talked about that. We have different levels of bad things, degrees of bad things, but let me just tell you also, the people who are least likely to cause the same harm again are people who’ve killed somebody. I know nobody wants to hear that, but it’s because it’s very hard to kill people. Contrary to what television tells you about serial killers, those images of crime, those crime shows that have literally polluted so many people’s brains in this country. > > Contrary to that, if you kill somebody, it is such a massively traumatic thing to have done to another person. Unless you are somebody who is evil without any sort of conscience, you are holding that the rest of your life. Go to any prison. And I’ve been to many, and I’ve actually taught in prisons, particularly a young people in juvenile facilities. When somebody killed somebody else, the level of remorse for that is something that is inexplicable to somebody who hasn’t experienced it and done that. > > So this notion that people are just “sociopaths,” which I don’t like to use that term either because it’s very complicated and not directly linked in terms of mental health and violence. The ideas that people offer out there in the general public often take away that idea, the idea of that harm being so traumatic to the person who harmed you, too. > > […] > > But the question is, what about the remorseless? > > And my thing is, I’m going to tell you right now that the remorseless killer who is caught is probably currently locked up for life. Right? Because that’s where they’re going to end up. My thing is within the new paradigm of a world that I envision, because so many things will have been different, because people will have had their needs met from the time they’re a kid. > > And so my thing is, I think we’re going to shift the paradigm in the end so that we have less “remorseless” people. And so we’re going to find a different way to handle those people who cannot in good conscience be within our regular society. But it doesn’t have to be a prison. It doesn’t have to be the prison as we’ve created it. > > So that’s the answer for me to that, which is we’re going to figure it out. We’re going to figure it out. But for now, most people who are locked up are not those people. For now, most people who are… > > So let’s let all those people out tomorrow and then let’s argue over the rest, while we’re changing the other things that happen. ([source](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/thinking-about-how-abolish-prisons-mariame-kaba-podcast-transcript-ncna992721)) In short, pointing out literally the worst serial killers is deflection, and buys into the cop propaganda that they’re the only ones keeping us from constantly being drowned in serial killers and murders. Yes, these exceptional circumstances happen, but the idea is that: 1. Widespread funding of public health and safety programs, keeping everyone’s basic needs met, and early and well funded intervention in things like mental health keep will drastically lower the incidence rate of these people developing in the first place. 2. These cases are vanishingly rare, and likely rarer with these new programs, to the point we can figure out how to handle it on a case by case basis. Maybe we’ll end up bringing prison back, but only for the like handful of people who absolutely cannot fit in a society at all. But 99.99999% of the imprisoned do not fit on that scale at all, and they’re more important than the tiny, tiny few that may truly need to be exiled or executed or imprisoned. > [@madsircool](#): > > Public housing has amplified crime, from Cabrini Green to Jordan Downs. People commit crime to get out of these places. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Didn’t we already do this? We have food stamps and section 8 housing. The crimes rates did not go down after that, they drastically increased. I’m not saying those programs were the cause, just that we’ve been there done that, and it didn’t help. I need to do more research to look up some specific rebuttals, but I know one common citation is, in fact, the cops again. They have a tendency to patrol “projects” like areas and rabble-rouse and harass to pick up easy convictions. Especially when things like drugs are around, and we give people access to these spaces but not any supplementary care such as rehabilitative programs and mental health aid. Another issue is that often this housing is frequently predicated on not “being a criminal” in some fashion, and people who do bad things are kicked out. One thing transformative justice is very clear on is that there is no such thing as “success”, there is no binary “reformed/not reformed.” People who do bad things are not magically better and are always at risk of slipping up and doing more harm (especially people with, e.g., drug issues), and we need to care for them **through** their fumbles as well, while still holding them accountable to the people and community they’ve harmed. On top of that, these measures are frequently ill or defunded, and shot in the leg due to it. Many times the food stamps and such are not enough to live on, or the housing isn’t properly maintained by the city. Even if enough to live on, oftentimes only if you are **extremely** exacting about what you purchase, with almost no room for even a treat to make yourself happy now and then. Now I’m not arguing food stamps should guarantee steak and caviar, but it shouldn’t make people tense and miserable. On top of that universal housing and food security means just that. Oftentimes these projects (ESPECIALLY food stamps) are plagued with means testing and “proving” you deserve these things and aren’t “gaming the system” somehow. Oftentimes this can result in people losing (or kneecapping) the ability to access these public resources while being materially worse off because they got surprise income or a million other tiny reasons. The solutions proposed involve dropping it and just letting everyone have access to the resources they need to survive and thrive. Yes - this means a b/millionaire can use food stamps or whatever. I think we should tax millionaires and billionaires into oblivion, of course, but if you want to do that reductio ad absurdum then, yes, I am indeed saying that Jeff Bezos is completely entitled to be provided food and housing. It’s also a long game thing, that if we have these programs in place as people grow up for all classes of people, the rate of crime will lower over multiple generations as insecurity gets better and people are never damaged by poverty and violence and such in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/268 "2020-06-13T06:46:50Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > In short, pointing out literally the worst serial killers is deflection, and buys into the cop propaganda that they’re the only ones keeping us from constantly being drowned in serial killers and murders. Yes, these exceptional circumstances happen, but the idea is that: Okay, not Ted Bundy. Let’s say I come home from work early and find my wife in bed with another man. I kill them both. Counseling or something similar? No punishment? Just something to keep me from doing that again? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/269 "2020-06-13T07:08:17Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Well like you said there could other causal effects which is why I would like to see rigorous studies. But yes I would be skeptical that social programs reduce crime in any large way. > > BTW this is a good [article](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10981274/crime-violence-policies-guns)with a list of policies that reduce crime which appear to be based on good research. The six policies are: > a)Stricter alcohol policies > b)Hot-spot policing > c)Focused deterrent policing > d)Raising the age for school dropout > e)Behavioral intervention programs > f)Eliminate blighted housing > > Two of these involve policing which is another reason why proposals to cut policing are especially idiotic. I’ll read your article tomorrow because I’m getting ready to go to sleep, but I would just note that all of those require policing. Really every policy that you can think of would require policing because some people will drink in public, drop out of school, tell their behavioral counselors to fuck off, and not repair their property. When that happens, you have to send someone, let’s maybe not call them police, but someone with coercive power to force them to not drink in public, to go to school, to listen to their counselors, or to repair their property. It’s great to say that we are going to send Jimmy the 22 year old who shoplifts to counseling or other experts to make him stop shoplifting, but what if he doesn’t show up to his appointments and continues to shoplift? At what point do we stop the effort? And as I said above, _we already do this_. What is different under the new and improved method? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/270 "2020-06-13T07:20:56Z")
Yes that’s a valid point. Pretty much every policy requires some policing though also more trust between the police and the community. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/271 "2020-06-13T13:41:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thread is only six pages long, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to read all the paged. Go back to page 104: > > India has a excessive number of what they call “police encounters”-433 in one six month period in one State: > > [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41480752](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41480752) > > \*The government of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has been accused of carrying out hundreds of extra-judicial killings. Journalist Sharat Pradhan explores this extraordinary claim. > > The regional government said it has conducted 433 “police encounters” in a bid to improve law and order in the state. > > An encounter is a popular Indian term for fatal police shootings, most of which appear to be staged. > > Rising crime rates in Uttar Pradesh convinced Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to launch the crackdown, according to officials who spoke to the BBC on the condition of anonymity. > > Official statistics say 433 such “killings” had occurred over six months, starting in March 2017 when Mr Adityananth was elected on the back of a massive mandate for India’s right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).\* > > There are more: > [https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/extrajudicial-killings-long-history-fake-encounters](https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/extrajudicial-killings-long-history-fake-encounters) > _A high-profile case filed in 2012 before the Supreme Court of India related to allegations of 1,528 extrajudicial killings in the state of Manipur,_ > > So, because these are not “legal” police shooting, India doesnt count them, we have no idea of how many there really are- but clearly many. Those are against organized crime and armed uprisings (Naxalites) like the case in Manipur. They dont happen on a regular basis. But even if you want to include these numbers, then including 433 makes the 1 in 10 million number go utpo 4 in 10 million - still \*\* far far below the 46 in 10 million number\*\* for the USA. Even if you add the 1528 numbers of the armed uprising in Manipur, the number adds up to 16 per 10 million people. It is a lot below the USA number. ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/272 "2020-06-13T14:32:07Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html) > Clearly you don’t know what is actually being proposed by your fellow travelers. Check them out and make better arguments than the condescending dismissals you’ve posted so far. That Op-Ed is basically a highly persuasive, full-page advert for Donald Trump. To the people who wept and rent their garments over Tom Cotton’s editorial; _this_ is the real danger. ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/273 "2020-06-13T14:38:11Z")
Missed the edit window: Just FYI - I support the _Times’_ right to publish this editorial just as much as I supported their right to publish Cotton’s. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/274 "2020-06-13T14:56:28Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html) > Clearly you don’t know what is actually being proposed by your fellow travelers. Check them out and make better arguments than the condescending dismissals you’ve posted so far. :rolleyes: The condescension stands because clearly you did not read that I do not agree with the absolute 🙂 point of view of that editorial. Deal with the points rather than the straw man, for those who don’t know, basically a straw man is showing positions an opponent **does not have** that are easier to dismiss while thinking that others will not notice that the position I have is not the same as that “fellow traveler”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/275 "2020-06-13T16:57:19Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Those are against organized crime and armed uprisings (Naxalites) like the case in Manipur. They dont happen on a regular basis. > > But even if you want to include these numbers, then including 433 makes the 1 in 10 million number go utpo 4 in 10 million - still \*\* far far below the 46 in 10 million number\*\* for the USA. > > Even if you add the 1528 numbers of the armed uprising in Manipur, the number adds up to 16 per 10 million people. > > It is a lot below the USA number. No, sorry, because that 433 is in ONE state of 18, in one short period. We simply dont know the extent of these killing as India doesnt count them as police shooting. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/276 "2020-06-13T16:59:43Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > That Op-Ed is basically a highly persuasive, full-page advert for Donald Trump. To the people who wept and rent their garments over Tom Cotton’s editorial; _this_ is the real danger. Yep, the Right are already seizing upon this to scare people into voting for trump. The author is either: 1. Secretly working for the GOP OR 2. A idiot. Because even AOC isnt talking abolish the police. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/277 "2020-06-13T17:13:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yep, the Right are already seizing upon this to scare people into voting for trump. > > The author is either: > > 1. Secretly working for the GOP > OR > 2. A idiot. > > Because even AOC isnt talking abolish the police. One thing to be aware, that was AFAIK the opinion of an activist, not a Democrat in congress, Cotton was and as many in the SDMB have noticed before: We are supposed to listen to some of the ideas of the absolutists and keeping them out of power. Not to vote for them. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/278 "2020-06-13T18:52:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > The condescension stands because clearly you did not read that I do not agree with the absolute 🙂 point of view of that editorial. > > Deal with the points rather than the straw man, for those who don’t know, basically a straw man is showing positions an opponent **does not have** that are easier to dismiss while thinking that others will not notice that the position I have is not the same as that “fellow traveler”. It’s not a strawman if people are actually arguing for it. The topic of the fucking thread is “Abolish the police?” Since we’ve established that you are not actually advocating for abolishing the police - have you considered that you are not the only person in the thread, and that my posts are perhaps directed at people other than you? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/279 "2020-06-13T19:01:13Z")
Because I can’t tear my eyes away from this train wreck, I want to point out another bit of idiocy in the linked article: > [@The New York Fucking Times](#): > > The first thing to point out is that police officers don’t do what you think they do. They spend most of their time responding to noise complaints, issuing parking and traffic citations, and dealing with other noncriminal issues. We’ve been taught to think they “catch the bad guys; they chase the bank robbers; they find the serial killers,” said Alex Vitale, the coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College, in an interview with Jacobin. But this is “a big myth,” he said. “The vast majority of police officers make one felony arrest a year. If they make two, they’re cop of the month.” The fact that the United States has an incredibly effective and efficient law enforcement system is itself a deterrent to crime. People know that they will be tracked down and punished if they commit a crime, and the more serious the crime, the more determined the police will be in doing so. So the fact that the police don’t actually spend that much time tracking down criminals is evidence that the system works, and shouldn’t be used to justify cutting their funding. This is a little bit like saying “Why am I spending so much money on fire insurance, my house has never burned down?” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2020, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205/280 "2020-06-13T19:06:28Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > It’s not a strawman if people are actually arguing for it. The topic of the fucking thread is “Abolish the police?” No, that’s called nutpicking > [@](#): > > Since we’ve established that you are not actually advocating for abolishing the police - have you considered that you are not the only person in the thread, and that my posts are perhaps directed at people other than you? Can you point out in this thread that is calling for a literal abolishment of all law enforcement, so we know who your posts are directed to? > [@Absolute](#): > > Because I can’t tear my eyes away from this train wreck, I want to point out another bit of idiocy in the linked article: > > The fact that the United States has an incredibly effective and efficient law enforcement system is itself a deterrent to crime. People know that they will be tracked down and punished if they commit a crime, and the more serious the crime, the more determined the police will be in doing so. So the fact that the police don’t actually spend that much time tracking down criminals is evidence that the system works, and shouldn’t be used to justify cutting their funding. This is a little bit like saying “Why am I spending so much money on fire insurance, my house has never burned down?” It works great for those who are protected and not bound. Not so great for those who are bound without protection. A better analogy than yours would be, “Why do I care that the firefighters are burning down your house? They keep mine from catching on fire!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolish-the-police/855205.md?page=15)