I’m sure all the hardened criminals out there just need a group hug. Maybe some couples therapy.
But we’re not really talking about abolishing anything; what’s being discussed is disbanding and rebuilding agencies that are supposed to represent a democratic government into institutions that do what we, the citizenry, want them to do, not what corrupt employees’ unions or pandering politicians want them to do.
We, the citizenry, are deeply divided. A great many want “law and order,” and are afraid of crime, especially street gangs. We, the citizenry, are not happy when our garage doors are spray-painted with gang insignia.
It’s like the abortion debate: We, the citizenry, are divided.
Reform the police? Hell yeah. Abolish? Not so wise an idea.
Angela Davis has written a book arguing for just that. I’ve not read it myself, but I hear it’s at least thought-provoking. Maybe reading the arguments of serious thinkers on this subject will be enlightening?
We need a verb that doesn’t have the implied negation of “abolish” but is far stronger than “reform”.
Refurbish.
“Transform the police”? That’s pretty short, seems decently suited to being chanted–maybe even in rhetorical opposition to the milquetoast “reform”–“NO RE-FORM! TRANS-FORM! NO RE-FORM! TRANS-FORM!”–but doesn’t sound like we’re all of a sudden advocating becoming an anarcho-syndicalist commune. (Those among us who are advocating becoming an anarcho-syndicalist commune would be free to continue chanting “ABOLISH THE POLICE!”; that way, everyone could communicate where they stand on things, which is the fundamental purpose of language–even of slogans that are chanted during demonstrations.)
Start over.
Well, community accountability is a big part of it. You’ll likely have to face the people you work with, your victims’ families. Again, you may be removed from your job, especially if you worked with people who knew your wife or her lover.
Also I think you both are underestimating how unlikely murderers are to reoffend and how much emotional trauma murderers suffer. It’s extremely hard to take a person’s life and those that do are often extremely emotionally destroyed. Most murders are not cold-blooded remorseless killers, those are extremely rare. And again we can figure out what to do with those on a case by case basis, including those who decide to keep bucking their accountability and, say, murder more people.
Let’s help the vast majority of inmates and criminals first and worry about the worst of the worst as it comes up.
As for the cycle of revenge, if it seems likely someone wants to take revenge, then the murderer will likely get some form of protection - being hidden, having guards (who were not directly hurt by the murder), etc. This is also part of why community accountability is victim-focused, we would consult the victim for what they need (within reason), and set them up with counseling and other help as well, specifically to prevent this.
Yes, there are police negotiators, but many of the same techniques could be used with social workers, and people who aren’t given traumatizing training and power complexes. Not to mention prisons are extremely counter to any form of restorative justice. They force people into slave labor (literally), and are filled with issues like rape and power abuse. They’re unjust institutions full stop.
Probation is an issue because there’s no such thing as “success” people, mostly people like drug offenders, are likely to make mistakes and slip up. That goes for murderers too who, while unlikely to commit murder again, may end up using drugs to cope, and then get put back in prison for “breaking probation” for an unrelated offense. We need to care for people through these problems, not threaten them with a stick.
I have to question how innate this sense of fairness is because I don’t have it and never have. I’ve been sexually assaulted and abused. I don’t want those people to be punished, or suffer any retribution. I want them to be better people. The person who broke into my house when I was 11 and stole a lot of things? I want him to have what he needs to live comfortably, so he doesn’t need to pawn off peoples electronics and precious items to get what he needs. Or counselling if it was a power trip or thrill thing, so he can find ways to manage that without scaring and hurting people (emotionally, he didn’t do it while anyone was there). Not be thrown further into poverty by paying exorbitant fines or going to an institution that has a serious risk of abusing and traumatizing him.
Yup, prison abolition is part of the package! You got it right!
That’s not sarcasm I’m being legitimate.
E: In fact that book I like to cite, Fumbling Towards Repair has a whole section on abolishing the PIC (Prison Industrial Complex), I’ll try to dig up some quotes.
The coronavirus has seemingly put a damper on the otherwise ever-present occurrence of mass shootings in this country. But I guarantee as soon as the next one happens, all the same people calling for police to be abolished are going to be calling for more gun control. How’s that going to work?
Who’s going to enforce “assault weapon” bans, magazine capacity limits, check to make sure you have a permit to carry that pistol, or stop me from building 100 full-auto AKs to sell out of the back of a van? A social worker?
Well, then listen to NPR radio.
Yeah the more I think about it the more I realize that the whole “abolish the police” thing only has momentum because of the current news cycle, initially being dominated by coronavirus and then being dominated by a combination of coronavirus and the Floyd protests. It has momentum, but the momentum isn’t going to last.
Let me put that another way: the momentum of calling for police reform may last. Actually, I hope it does last, because I think it needs to happen. But “abolish the police” is eventually going to collide headlong with the next incident of violence, not committed by police, that sparks public outrage.
Someone shoots up a mosque? Still want to abolish the police?
A series of black churches are vandalized all over the country. Still want to abolish the police?
Some psychopath commits a string of rapes and murders of transgender women in a major city. Still want to abolish the police?
A white supremacist and incel shoots up his workplace, killing 25 people. Still want to abolish the police?
It’s not going to last. There is simply no way.
Actually, to be less dramatic about it, what if I just decide I’m not going to pay taxes anymore. The IRS can send me all the letters it wants, I don’t give a damn. I’m not paying my taxes. Who’s going to ultimately come get me and hold me accountable?
If I’VE got this idea, how many others have the same idea? Go ahead and abolish the police. Oh - the FBI aren’t the police? Like hell they aren’t - they’re armed, they’re dangerous, don’t cherry-pick the police you want to abolish, either you want to abolish the police or you don’t.
Serious thinkers? I thought you said Angela Davis.
Do you think they send guys out to arrest you if you dont pay? 
Nope, they levy your bank accounts, maybe seize some assets, but it is not illegal to not pay your income taxes.
Here’s something I’m curious about now: I speculate that police abolishment doesn’t get any traction, regardless of whether it deserves to or not. With that in place, what then?
I kind of take it for granted that meaningful reform of the criminal justice system (or even just the police) on any sort of widespread scale is never going to happen. There will be attempts, and those attempts will be flawed, don’t go far enough, and/or are immediately shot down by Republicans and the police union. The majority of white citizens in this country will stop caring, because they accept the harassment and deaths of “other people” as a price they’re willing to have other people pay to have the police around. So the police will go back to doing their primary job (protecting rich people’s stuff) the way they see fit and we’ll go on like we are until the next major incident and riot, then the next, then the next, and each time people will say, “they have no business rioting; why don’t they just peacefully advocate for reform?”
How might this cycle be broken? What would realistically it take for something substantial to happen on any kind of large scale?
How are they going to seize assets from me without armed backup?
Forget the taxes then. What if I just decide I don’t want to pay for anything anymore? I feel like upgrading my computer. Apple Store window, meet my friend the brick. I’ve always wanted a Rolex Milgauss. Man, those things are badass. Jewelry store window, meet brick. Ferrari dealership? I’m coming by with a car-hauler and helping myself to several Ferraris. Put all the GPS tracking devices you want in the things - hell, I’ll leave a note with my home address. Who are you going to call to come get me?
You really don’t need a criminology degree to figure this one out.
Well, yeah.
I remember from history class that in the 1840s, some fire departments would actually set fires unless you paid them not to. Reform worked well with that, as you (almost?) never hear of that now. You just have to be serious about it and do it. I think they’re going to have to be serious about it now.
Makes sense. I said before that the fundamental difference in the two sides of this debate is whether you think it’s self evident that the police, in general, protect and serve the public interest or not. This is a case where I think a little bit of “both sides” does apply: it seems like neither side can conceive of the idea that the other side thinks the way they do. One is probably more right than the other, but I still think it’s true.
What do you think is different about this time from all the other times in the past, say, forty to fifty years that there’s been widespread controversy and civil unrest over something the police did?