What we have in the US does work for the most part. Putting the crazies in charge is what leads to things like the reign of terror and regimes like USSR and communist China. That’s change alright. But it’s not positive change.
Trump promised to drain the swamp, instead we got the swamp thing.
There are over 2 million Americans currently incarcerated, with another 4½ million under correctional supervision (probation, parole, and bail).
That’s 3% the adult population and 24.7% of the world’s incarcerated population (even tho we only account for just over 4% of total population)
It costs American taxpayers $81 Billion a year to run the prisons and it costs the incarcerated $100 Billion to be there.
About 1000 citizens are killed every year by the police. And Americans lose $1.8 billion in civil forfeiture.
I haven’t even gotten started. Should we talk about how many cases go unsolved each year?
How about the number of innocent people currently in prison?
Or on death row?
And I haven’t even gotten to the racist part, yet.
If you think this is a system that works, I don’t know what to say.
It’s like they are trying to dog whistle, but got it backwards.
I think “Fix the Police” would be absolutely perfect. On the face it’s reasonable to the point of meekness, which gives its supporters a veneer of politeness and civility. But “fix” has that alternate meaning of neuter, which gives it an edge. Plus, if you get a crowd chanting “Fix the Police”, “fix” is going to be a fill-in word for “fuck” and everyone’s going to know it. And you can still claim civility.
THAT is how you dog whistle.
Damn, the Democrats need some people with sales and marketing experience. They are lousy at it.
I still have to say: Most of the ones that came with that slogan were activists. Democrats, not so much.
Oh, the criminal justice system definitely needs reform. I am in agreement. Burning, looting, assault, vandalism, and generally acting like unhinged mobs are prone to do isn’t a compelling argument though. It’s, what’s that word again? Oh, counterproductive.
Actually, since China and North Korea’s numbers are bogus (and likely several other non-free nations), we have no idea of the of the world’s incarcerated population.
Mind you, I am not disputing your main point in that we have too many men in prison. I blame the GOP and their profiteering private prisons.
The Democrat Mayor of Seattle recently voted to cut police funding (Defund Police). But the action was vetoed by city council.
HERE is an interesting video where an anti-police activist tries going thru actual police “Use of Force” training and finds out just how difficult it is for police. Watch as he either ends up shooting the person or gets killed himself. He later discusses how he has changed his mind and has new respect for police.
You know, the day may come when I listen to a conservative lecture me about disavowing the crazy extremists, but I don’t think that day is going to be in 2020.
My take on the slogan: I originally heard it from my anarchist friends, who by “defund the police” mean “abolish the police by eliminating their budget.” When George Floyd’s murder led to a public groundswell of support for major changes to US policing, I think a lot of anarchist thought their moment had come, and they said, “THIS IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS! THE POLICE ARE BROKEN, GET RID OF THEM! DEFUND THE POLICE!”
Other folks heard that and were like, “Sure, defund the police, by which we mean, move some of the money from the police budget to other budgets, and strengthen social services so that unarmed experts can handle situations where guns aren’t required.”
Meanwhile my anarchist friends are like, “Fuck that, that’s not defunding the police, that’s moving money from one pot to another!”
Actually removing all funding from police is a position that some people hold. And as near as I can tell, they’re the ones who used the phrase first, and they’re pissed off at its cooptation by progressives.
I’d just as soon let them have it; divest and reinvest is a better slogan anyway.
Defund the police means different things depending on who you ask. To some it means abolition of the police.
" Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full defunding as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services."
Sounds, to me, like they’re more libertarians than anarchists. They want their money back.
My anarchist experience is, that while we don’t want a centralized govt. We are in favor of using public resources on social programs. So taking money from the police (a fascist arm of the state) and moving that money to mental health programs, and affordable housing programs, and restorative justice programs, etc is actually a good thing.
Yes. That’s what running_coach is saying. This has been explained over and over. Even those of us who see the ultimate goal as the abolition of the police, recognize that this is a multi step process. And if the people only want to do the first couple steps and stop short of fully defunding the police; Well, that’s the next fight then. In the meantime, we’ll take what we can get.
There’s a saying when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. This “Use of Force” training: did it involve any “suspects” who might have been mentally ill? Deaf? Confused for one reason or another? I cannot believe every scenario a police officer might face in the field is going to result in shooting the suspect or getting himself killed. Is there any discussion about de-escalation in this training?
Not even in the same multiverse as libertarians. They don’t want their money back, they don’t want a monetary system, they don’t want police to have money. Believe me, i didn’t just fall off the rutabaga truck, I know my anarchists from my US Libertarians, I know my Kropotkin from my Nozick.
And the moving of money from one pot to another complaint was because the police reduction simply took services like animal control, which already didn’t have armed officers, and moved them to a different department; their demand had been that the police experience a genuine reduction in force of at least 50%.
Ah, got it.
Yeah this is a big complaint. The forces that are currently experiencing defunding (eg NYC) are making reductions in their civilian staff instead of uniformed officers. Kinda the opposite of what’s intended.
Different people are using different definitions of “defund the police” and then criticizing others for not getting it straight. This is why words have meanings and we shouldn’t use the word yellow to describe the color blue.
No. It’s just a few who are unable to understand or refuse to try.
Those of us who want to abolish the police say that. But, golly gee, one of the steps to abolishing the police is defunding them.
Those who want to defund the police say that. But, golly gee, some are calling for complete defunding and some only partial.
No words are being used in any but the common ways.
That seems like a lot of rationalization for poor word choice.
Bless your heart.
And who do you propose to call to deal with rapists, murderers, slavers and other dregs of human society if there are no police?