Very funny to have the OP and his fans decry the lack of creative thinking about criminal justice reform and then when someone presents an alternative model to re-frame some conceptual issues say "first, of all: how DARE you!"
Very funny to have the OP and his fans decry the lack of creative thinking about criminal justice reform and then when someone presents an alternative model to re-frame some conceptual issues say "first, of all: how DARE you!"
you can think of millions of different solutions and still be creative, but I think people are more interested in useful solutions. I don't think the US is going to model their justice system on Bedouin vendettas.
Ever heard of the Hatfields and McCoys? The US did historically model its justice system on vendettas at certain points. It's the idea of mercy that I think would be interesting (though I can now see that expecting Americans to appreciate this is too much).
The US historically didn't let women vote and let people own slaves, I don't think justifying things based off the US's historical practices is very useful either. I think we can just say the justice system should be merciful without going back to Jordanian Bedouins or the hatfields and McCoys.
I said it was intriguing, it’s just funny that you set the bar that low and still admit you can’t clear it
Seriously are y’all so fucking ignorant you can’t literally google alternatives to police??? Just one example: www.themarshallproject.org/2024/07/25/p...
The thing is: they love cops even if the feeling definitely isn't mutual.
These kinds of teams aren't an alternative to police, they're a fix for the problem that police are constantly responding to calls that should be handled by a mental health professional or etc. They're obviously good but don't really conceptually help "who comes when someone gets murdered?" etc
like the main question here is "how do we accomplish the functions of police that matter" and taking away things they never should've been doing is important, but that's merely addressed the creeping expansion of scope, not how we go about doing policing without police
Are you aware of the clearance rate of most police departments? We actually don’t have what you’re describing now. So I don’t think your question is legit. There are many solutions that aren’t police.
crisis response is not the same thing as investigative work
Yes you have specialized teams none of which are police
can you diagram your system of specialized teams that encompass all good activities police currently do but none of the bad ones
You mean like every other job in society??? Again are you aware that are current system of policing does not achieve what you’re describing. Simply google the clearance rates of crimes ffs
* our
you have to keep backing down to this take (as if I am defending police's ability to clear murder cases lol) because, fundamentally, you have not actually considered how you would fill the gaps in the services police currently provide. you should do more than just google alternatives to policing
An unarmed team can also investigate murders…
doesn't really seem like you understand what you're talking about
Explain it to me then?
That and how do you hold police accountable for their misdeeds and instill a culture of service vs entitlement into the rank and file.
By not having police!
Who investigates the murders man??
An unarmed team specially trained, with nothing to do with enforcement and no special priveleges in society. Just like every other job…
What does "nothing to do with enforcement" mean exactly and why would these people not just be an unarmed version of "police" ?
Read through this site and do more research. I guarantee you are not the first person to have thought of these questions lol. Thats the problem with everind on the thread. Hubris + ignorance: defundthepolice.org/alternatives...
investigation is such a small portion of what cops actually do as well. "who comes when someone calls 911 and says a family member is beating the shit out of them?" is a vastly more common question we would need to address first and "no one who can wield state violence" is not an easy answer