Radical idea to explore -- law enforcement will never react to non-violent offenses with force

Great Debates
1

Could be a nonsense idea, but it might be interesting to talk about. To reiterate, I’m not advocating this idea, just trying to explore it. Might be totally stupid.

For the purpose of this discussion, assault, armed robbery, burglary, breaking-and-entering, murder, rape, sexual offenses, battery, theft (if force or threat of force was involved, or if private property was broken into), firearms offenses, cruelty to animals, kidnapping, drunk driving, human trafficking, and abuse are all considered violent. They would be treated just as they are now. There may be other crimes that would fall into this category that I haven’t named. Common sense applies to these categorizations – if something involves force or coercion (plus a few special offenses like firearms and drunk driving that might be especially dangerous to the public), then it probably should count as “violent”.

Non-violent offenses would include fraud, selling illegal products (like drugs), prostitution, traffic offenses (except for very serious ones like reckless driving), unlicensed business operation, disturbing the peace, etc.

There are probably crimes that don’t fit cleanly into either category – please bring them up. Again, this is just a discussion – for fun. Maybe it’s a totally stupid idea, and I’d love to hear the many reasons why this might be the case.

What I mean by this is that law enforcement would never respond to a non-violent offense with violence or force, in any way, including forceful arrest. That means that cops will document non-violent offenses they see (including with video), confront in a non-violent way offenders for non-violent offenses, including non-violent “arrests”. Non-violent arrests would be something like announcing that one is under arrest, and requesting they voluntarily accompany the police to the police station. If they refuse, this will be documented and counted as an additional non-violent offense (refusal to cooperate with arrest).

So then what? Won’t non-violent offenders run amok with non-violent offenses? Then we go with non-violent sanctions. Cops are better equipped to figure out who is the offender – they have video (for the purposes of this discussion), and in most cases it won’t be terribly difficult to investigate and find out who the offender is. The non-violent sanctions would include freezing bank accounts, paychecks, driver’s license, credit cards, rent payments, publicizing the offenses with headshots distributed through the community, utilities get turned off, even going as far as suspending social media and cell-phone accounts, etc. – basically, law enforcement makes as many nuisances as possible until the offender turns himself in. The offender wouldn’t be able to do much of anything that involves electronic money, electronic media, identification, etc.

I understand this is probably not feasible in today’s world for a variety of reasons. I’m just interested in the thought exercise.

I don’t doubt that this would increase the amount of non-violent offenses, and make it less likely that non-violent offenders would be punished. Depending on how much more offenses there are, this may or may not be worth the (presumed) improved community relations and cooperation.

The goal is to make a radical change to foster better community relations – if everyone knows that the cops will absolutely not use force against you unless you are violent, making threats of violence, or engaging in extremely dangerous activities, then I think people would be more likely to cooperate. People would hopefully be less likely to see cops as the enemy if they never physically handle/hassle you or people you know unless you/they are violent.

Further, I don’t think this increases any danger to cops – for any violent offender, they respond as they always have (minus any biases and misconduct, of course).

So give it to me – where are the weak points? I know they’re there. Let’s have some fun with this.

2

Do you consider resisting arrest to be a violent offense?

3

Read the thread.

EDIT: I discuss this, but perhaps not fully enough. A forceful arrest would only be attempted in the case of a violent offense. Only then could a suspect be “resisting arrest”, which would be an additional violent offense. In the case of the non-violent arrests I discuss, refusal to cooperate would be a separate non-violent arrest.

4

So if I don’t want to go to jail, I just have to say “No thanks” and I don’t have to. And the burden is on the police to use market forces to convince me that going to jail would be fun.

So noted.

I see absolutely no way that could ever go wrong.

5

I guess you still haven’t read the thread fully. I admit that it could definitely go wrong, and would likely result in more non-violent offenses. Though many or most non-violent offenses could be addressed without jail time – fines, community service, house-arrest, etc. I’m wondering if the (hopefully) improved community relations would be worth this.

6

This sounds like an absolute ton of effort that would seem to be mostly ineffective and counter productive. Let’s say, for example, the cops stop a suspects pay check. I’m guessing most businesses are going to respond by firing the employee. If we turn off their utilities, they’re landlords are probably going to respond by evicting them. In the long run, that’s going to be more harmful and end up causing crime.

I think the more radical idea is that we don’t make anything illegal that we aren’t willing to enforce with escalating force.

7

I’ve got a better idea. Repeal the 2nd amendment and end the war on drugs.

8

So if I understand your proposal: The cops suspect iiandyiiii of running a prostitution ring and they get an arrest warrant, and knock on your front door. You answer and they present you with a warrant and tell you that you are under arrest. You refuse, so they go on their merry way.

You are now charged with prostitution and non-violent resisting arrest. They can now garnish your paycheck without a trial or any other process? And that is now legal because you had the chance to have a trial by submitting to an arrest? Am I right so far?

If so, you are free to continue running prostitution and racking up the non-violent arrest charges until the paycheck garnishment, utilities being shut off, etc. are so onerous that you turn yourself in and face the whole boatload of charges?

Well, the first problem I see is one of misidentification. What if they stop a guy that simply looks like you? Do you now have to prove your innocence?

Second, couldn’t people just live off the grid? Don’t most drug dealers already live off the grid? I would hate it, but it might be an attractive option to continue to live off the grid and run an all-night cocaine, heroin, illegal liquor, untaxed cigarettes, after 3am bar, meth store,and prostitution service (all cash only) with my own generator in the basement, complete with a well-pump, and pre-paid burner cell phones with internet. I could serve everyone in the state and have a booming non-taxable cash business.

How far could the government go to stop me? Remember, I and all of my suppliers can simply refuse to be arrested.

9

All very good questions! My main answer is that much of this happens anyway – it’s not that hard to get away with such crimes, from my understanding, at least in certain parts of the country. But these are definitely the kinds of concerns I was looking for.

10

Suppose I decide to start up a bank which exclusively caters to non-violent wanted persons, and pledges to them in the fine print that we will never comply with any police demand to freeze their accounts or garnish their paychecks.

What are the police going to do about it? Shut us down? I don’t consent to being shut down, and since it’s a non-violent offense, they can’t force the issue. Revoke our business license? Fine, so now we’re operating without a license - also a non-violent offense, so they can’t do jack squat about it either. Shut off our power? Maybe - unless the power company decides they’d make more money by serving us rather than complying with the police, and that’s also a non-violent offense, so the police can’t do shit about that either.

The end result is a libertarian dystopia where the police are powerless to do anything to anyone unless they can claim force has been used - thereby encouraging the police to make false claims of violent resistance and engage in excessive physicality if they want to get anything done.

11

Most business will comply with such mundane requirements, I believe – the minute additional business from non-violent criminals would probably not be worth the hassle and bad publicity. That’s all society is anyway, even now – it requires the consent of the governed to avoid armed insurrection. So I don’t think this would be any more likely in my scenario than it is today.

12

Why are crimes against property like theft being defined as violent crimes? If I’m stealing cars, I’m probably going out of my way to make sure there’s nobody around when I’m “working”. So who am I being violent against?

It would seem more honest to say that your proposal only allows the police to use force in cases involving violent crimes or property crimes.

On a separate issue, how would copyright infringement be handled in your system? If I’m selling copying and selling bootleg dvd’s am I committing a “serious” crime than justifies my forcible arrest or a “non-violent” crime where I can refuse to accept arrest?

13

Maybe breaking into cars shouldn’t count – I’m not sure. But breaking into houses definitely should, in my view. Breaking into a house is certainly violent, in my view, because it places those inside in direct physical harm, and there’s no way to be absolutely certain no one is inside.

Definitely non-violent. Thefts that don’t involve any force (which, with breaking-and-entering type crimes might involve “force” against a door or window) are probably non-violent based on my categorizations.

14

I would like to have some teeth in these non-violent responses. Maybe a first strike is responded to non-violently, but subsequent police confrontations the violence ramps up. With tales of squatters, people who refuse eviction, people living off the grid, who have resources to do so, I don’t see a total non-violent police response to be all that effective.

If police are to respond non-violently, I would give them far more leeway and power to disrupt your life. Calling for backup, barricading the person in whatever location they are in until they surrender, seizing of all your assets, even unrelated ones, that sort of thing

15

I forgot to mention another possible benefit of my half-baked idea: to help make America a less violent society.

16

It’s a worthy goal, but I think it’s putting the cart before the horse.

If the American citizenry were less violent, the police would very likely follow.

Asking the police to lead the way seems backwards. It’s like stopping taking aspirin, in hopes my headache will get better.

17

I don’t know if that’s a safe assumption. I think most people - and by extension most businesses that are owned and operated by people - are aware that they are answerable to the law. But your system makes non-compliance an easier option.

Let’s say Al is selling marijuana, which is illegal. The police go to arrest him but Al refuses to co-operate. So the police issue him a “refusal to be arrested” ticket and leave.

The police then go around and tell businesses they should cut off Al to pressure him into complying with his arrest. Bob, who owns the local pizza place doesn’t think marijuana is a big deal. He decides he doesn’t care if Al is selling marijuana so he’s not going to stop selling Al pizzas.

Can the police then go around and tell businesses that they should cut off Bob as well? Is refusing to co-operate with the police a crime?

Other local businesses that might have been willing to cut off a drug dealer like Al are probably going to be less willing to cut off a fellow community businessman like Bob, who hasn’t himself committed any crime. If some people keep doing business with Bob, do those people get put on the police list? The more people who are on the list, the more incentive the community will have for ignoring it. You might ostracize a few people in your town but you can’t ostracize how the town. If I want to go watch a movie, I’m not going to be thinking “Well, I can’t go to the theatre because they buy soda from the same Pepsi distributor who supplies Bob’s Pizzaria two towns over.” At some point the system collapses under its own weight.

Other issues:

How will people who are willing to comply with the police ban list know who is affected. Let’s say somebody from out of state is driving through town and feels hungry. If they stop and eat at Bob’s Pizzaria do they go on the list for doing business with Bob? How would they have known Bob was on the list himself?

Bob’s on the list because he refuses to cut off Al, who is himself on the list because he refuses to comply with his arrest ticket. If Al decides to give himself up, does that take Bob off the list? Or is Bob still on some list because of his original refusal - Al backed down but Bob didn’t. But if Al turns himself in how does Bob get off the list and back into good graces? Bob can’t comply with the original request anymore because it’s a moot point now that Al gave in. You might end up with the bizarre situation where Al has been classified back to being a citizen in good standing but Bob’s in trouble because he refuses to ostracize Al - who’s no longer supposed to be ostracized.

If Bob gets taken automatically off the list if Al turns himself in, what happens if Al gets hit by a truck and dies? Or decides to avoid the hassle by moving to another state? Does Bob still carry the burden for not ostracizing Al even Al’s no longer around?

Suppose Al is gluten-intolerant and never ate pizza in the first place? How do you tell if Bob is complying or not? If Bob says he’ll sell Al pizza but Al never shows up to buy any, is Bob being non-compliant or not?

What happens if Al’s wife shows up to buy pizza? She never sold marijuana. Can Bob sell her a take-out pizza to bring home, knowing that Al will eat half of it? Or is all of Al’s family included in the ban on doing business with Al? How far does it extend? To Al’s children? To his siblings and parents?

I think I’ve made the point that this would be a really complicated issue to try to enforce. You’re going to need to put a lot of work into working out the details.

18

It still comes down to one’s word vs. another person’s word, unless there are cameras.

19

I’ve heard that argument made before and I disagree with it. In my opinion, you can only use violence against a person. I might be willing to listen to an argument that you can use violence against an animal but I think it’s nonsense to say you can use violence against an inanimate object like a door or window. You can damage or destroy these objects but it’s not a crime of violence. The crime you’re committing is against the person who own the item not against the item itself.

20

By this logic, is looting and arson nonviolent?