This story appeared on the AP yesterday. Here’s the crux of the biscuit:[
](Church cops? Congregation eyes its own unusual police force | AP News)
I don’t think this is a good idea. Beyond that, I think it would set a terrible precedent. I don’t really want anyone with enough money to have their own private police force (or army).
But with the political climate the way it is right now, I have a feeling that this will pass and get signed into law.
What say you, Dopers?
How would this be different from a private security firm, monitoring members of a given neighborhood?
As long as the hired security force doesn’t have the power to act as state or local law enforcement officials, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
But if this is a case of outsourcing police power to private religious people, then I would hope it is found to be unconstitutional.
How is it different from campus police? Every uni has a private police force effectively! Seems to work out okay.
I couldn’t find out if Birmingham AL cops are armed, but I assume so, and thus the bit: ‘Church officers would be trained to state policing standards and have all the duties and powers as other law enforcement’ could get amusing if the clerical police are armed to the same standards.
No doubt the Pentagon can transfer sufficient surplus stuff I would adore to own to the holy rollers:
A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”
No doubt they will look like this.
Well, for one thing, I’m not sure that Universities claim that there is a higher power than any man or man-made organization can wield that would doom someone (or their soul) to eternal damnation if they didn’t do what the University wished.
Why can’t the church just hire more security guards? Why do they need to be police officers?
Never heard of a Catholic University? Georgetown, or Notre Dame or Gonzaga?
Not really sure what the big deal is, universities, railroads, and company towns have a long history of having their own police forces. It’s not setting a precedent, it’s continuing something that’s been done before. I’m also not sure why it would make a huge difference to you if the church incorporated it’s land into a small town, then had a small town government hire a police force instead of what it’s doing now.
So it’s your belief that no small-town mayors or police chiefs, or county sherriffs, are or have ever been religious in the US?
And who needs that silly separation of church and state thing? Your sum up of the request is laughably facile.
Separation of Church and State means you can’t have a state religion, it doesn’t mean that a religious organization isn’t allowed to function like other organizations. If it meant what you think it means, then religious universities would not be allowed to have campus police departments, but they do.
There is no way a church run police force is going to fly. As the OP’s article mentions, this would most certainly be challenged in court and I’m quite confident it would be quashed, despite the glorious history of railroad police.
Universities are state-sanctioned and state licensed. Churches aren’t – because of Separation. (You wouldn’t WANT your church to have to fill out a licensing request every year.)
Because the churches are exempt from certain licensing requirements, they are also incompetent to have security forces that have legal arrest and detainment power.
If they want to hire private security guards, that’s fine.
It seems different to me in that this would place an armed police force, with the power to detain, under the direct control of a church.
I am also against private police forces for universities, railroads and company towns.
Would they send out a SWAT team if someone reported that a teen-aged kid was spankin’ it? Or anything on that continuum?
If the church has a large amount of people, that they are privately responsible for their safety and security, and those people are on the churches private lands, I can understand with and not necessarily disagree with the church wanting to provide a staff to do that.
That they want to have them properly trained is good.
But there have to be some distinct limits to their jurisdiction, and they have to turn detained persons etc over to the proper local authority as well as hand off all legal matters such as charges etc as well.
There also needs to be some very diligent observation of this simply to assure the people do not become held by the church against their will, or force fed kool-aid ala Jim Jones.
I do wonder though would it not be cheaper to contract from a reputable security firm instead?
I certainly wouldn’t object to that scenario - a church incorporating its land into a small town and then that town hiring police officers. But churches are not small towns, no matter their size. We should never give a church any of the powers or responsibilities of government, including (or especially!) police powers.
Why exactly do you think the church wants their own police force instead of a private security force? Think about the types of things police are allowed to do that private security forces aren’t, and then ask yourself again whether you really want a mosque or Jewish temple or a church to be allowed to do those things.
They could make a TV show about it: Law & Holy Order
As long as the church cops have guns, I can’t see a problem. Waitjustaminute here… We’re talkin’ good old reg’lar Christians here, right? Not Muslims?
There’s a contradiction in this article:
this sounds like any private security force, like the rent-a-cops at the mall.
But it also says:
“all the powers” includes the right to use handcuffs and make arrests, and right? Along with writing traffic tickets*- leading to fines and even jail time?
Does any private security force in the country have this power?
*(possible scenario: a drunk driver turns onto church property and drives recklessly)
What’s the contradiction? They don’t want to run a lockup so they’ll contract that part out.
I don’t really see it as any different in principle from any other private entity being allowed to have a police force. I’m not a huge fan of those arrangements either, though. There’s an issue of private bodies often not being subject to the same public scrutiny, but also, we just have too many tiny police departments in the USA. Half a dozen coworkers can’t be responsible for their own training, internal affairs, reporting uses of force so they can be scrutinized for wrongdoing, etc.