Another one: Any time an agency of the government collects a fine to deter bad behavior, the money must be given to another agency that is significantly removed from the decision making process that sets the fine, or to charity. Likewise for seized goods, etc. If the county police department starts writing more tickets for rolling stops, the money just ends up with the parks department. (Obviously it is possible in principle for different agencies to collude, but the same can be said about all checks and balances. The point is to make coordinating the collusion difficult/dangerous.)
People can complain all they want about individual instances of civil forfeiture or predatory red-light cameras, but those sorts of issues are all caused by the incentives induced when the agency that enacts the fine benefits from the money collected.
(This does not apply to the separate penalties/restitution used to compensate victims, pay for fixing actual damage, etc..)
If some agencies are currently dependent on revenue through fines, then this requires a one-time adjustment to their budget. But this is good as it just means that the cost of running their agencies becomes more transparent.
That sounds like a good idea on the surface but it doesn't actually discourage anything. If the revenue is getting into government at all it still has the same perverse incentives.
No need to "imagine" it. Just come to Europe. I can recommend either the UK or Slovenia based on personal experience, cops are completely domesticated. Portugal, Germany or Netherlands if you want decriminalization. Switzerland for direct democracy. Most EU countries for treating the mentally ill.
One of two places in the world I've been searched intrusively outside an airport, without warrant or probable cause: Switzerland (my wife used to live there). The other place: also in Europe.
I'm sure Europe is much nicer if it's evident that you're from whatever country you're in.
(Not exactly on point, but, whatever: the TSA has nothing on Heathrow international terminal for intrusive, pointless, rude searches).
People here in the US are always astonished when I point out that many European police officers don't carry any weapons, eg the typical UK or Irish police officer just carries a baton. Of course guns are available they're not regarded as an everyday necessity. I grew up with the concept that police officers were there as much to help people find their way around as to deal with crime.
Bonding tip-of-the-spear employees of the criminal justice system: cops, prosecutors, parole officers, prison guards. That way you can do away with qualified immunity, municipalities are not on the hook for paying settlements, and thugs price themselves out of the system.
I'm not necessarily "anti-police" but I do agree that treating "criminal" behavior as a mental health issue rather than one to be handled by punitive measures is the best way forward.
This is a huge problem in the US; lots of people have mental health problems but there are very few votes in trying to fix it. I've gone on at length about this before so I'll just offer these two links for people who want to get up to speed on the issue:
Disarming most police patrols would be an excellent start. Most of the violence committed against innocent civilians is perpetrated by the police. In major cities like Los Angeles, "no criminal organization kills as many people as the police.” [1]
> Most of the violence committed against innocent civilians is perpetrated by the police.
That sentence is completely different from "no criminal organization kills as many people as the police." While it is shockingly high, 3 to 8 percent is not 50%.
EDIT: Also, the majority of police victims are probably not "innocent" civilians, but armed, violent criminals.
They recently created uniforms for the Seattle Police department here. Its nebulous what they hope to accomplish with the added surveillance and personally it freaks me out.
I'm not saying were an Orwellian police state but at least we are headed that way.
My impression is that most people want the police to wear cameras so they have something more objective than the officer's verbal assertion when disputes arise - where they've been deployed, such cameras seem to lead to a reduction in complaints because officers know their behavior is being recorded.
The article seems pretty US focused. There are a lot of countries out there that are less police dominated that could be used as examples. In the UK where I am the policing is fairly light. It would be hard to say society is dominated by it outside a few bad areas where gangs stab each other so the police have to intervene. I was last stopped by the police about 20 years ago for driving 130mph in a 70 limit and let off with a warning.
Yeah, it's a bit different here. The last time I was stopped was a few years ago for having a burnt-out brake light in Nowheresville, Wyoming. The cop probably didn't like my dirty car and out-of-state plates, but my paperwork was in order, and I'm a harmless-looking white dude, so I got away with mild harassment and a warning.
I have witnessed very heavy handed policing of peaceful protestors and squatters here in the UK.
At the same time I know of cases of people being imprisoned that should be receiving psychiatric care instead; so point 6 in the article struck me especially.
There have been a lot of different ways to make and enforce laws through history, each with their particular costs and benefits. For a review of several I recommend this work (in progress) by David Friedman.
Another suggestion: abolish the practice of 'perp walks' and police publication of mugshots. They badly prejudice the right to a fair trial, the government is under no particular obligation to release that information until someone comes up for trial, and they're a grotesque infringement on the privacy and dignity of arrestees, many of whom are never even charged with a crime.
I can certainly imagine the proposed alternatives. I personally don't think they'll solve the behavioral issues in society at large. They likely would reduce the amount of policing and supplement traditional policing, but I don't think it'll eliminate the need. It's not as if all countries conspired and said, let's all have a police force!
I think the policing grows out of necessity. It's not as if there aren't lawless places where there is either little police or no police. Those places exist, for the most part, most people would choose to live in a different place where there are decently funded police. I'm not saying 'militarized' police are necessary or desired, but i think large societies need a force (people or robotic) which enforce the rules (reasonable/constitutionally sound) out by the population at large. Maybe a robotic force would be more impartial than people personafying the police force....
If you don't like police in your community elect officials (or get elected yourself) to stop paying for them. If you don't pay the cops they will not show up. I assume many of the commenters on this post have some advantages that would aide in persuading the local citizens of the benefits of transferring funds for police to education, mental health care, tax reduction, or whatever.
I believe we're beginning to see that happen, slowly. Younger folks tend to get their news from their friends on facebook, twitter, etc. Mainstream media sources are toward the late stage of the conversation rather than the beginning and end. I don't know that it's necessarily improving things, in that a lot of Fox News style bullshit gets passed around in the form of photos with inaccurate captions, etc. But, "mainstream" it is not.
Then again, the dialogue is still being controlled for enough of the population that the state line gets reproduced by a large number of people, possibly even the majority of people, in most instances where the state interests are at stake. Even seemingly without mainstream media, the message is well-controlled.
Some recent examples of a large percentage of people seemingly buying into the state story without question that I found unnerving: "North Korea was definitely responsible for the attack on Sony" (despite many technically savvy people having serious questions about that), "Michael Brown was definitely in a rage and running into a hail of bullets toward an armed police officer when he was killed" (despite significant evidence to the contrary), "Eric Garner wouldn't have been killed if he had just obeyed the law; it had nothing to do with his race", "Tamir Rice pulled a gun on cops" (despite video contradicting this claim).
I think that that's a great talking point, but from a very practical perspective the solution is to get people to question their media (social, main stream, or otherwise) carefully. Simply removing the big channels won't fix anything.
More importantly, though, it's still just a talking feel-good point: the fact of the matter is that if a cop can blow a hole in your baby with a flashbang during a no-knock warrant it doesn't matter a hoot in hell what news you subscribed to.
I want to patrol my own streets like I want to grow my own food, or supply my own home energy.
No thanks. People who provide these services do a better job than I ever will. I'm thankful that they are there, so I can focus all my energy on writing software.
I don't have to imagine it, It's called Colombia, where the Police is at best ineffective, and it's fxxxxing anarchy.
So let's imagine instead if the liberal media in the USA had global context instead of complaining because you have a functional police force with a few problems that need correcting.
[+] [-] jessriedel|11 years ago|reply
People can complain all they want about individual instances of civil forfeiture or predatory red-light cameras, but those sorts of issues are all caused by the incentives induced when the agency that enacts the fine benefits from the money collected.
(This does not apply to the separate penalties/restitution used to compensate victims, pay for fixing actual damage, etc..)
If some agencies are currently dependent on revenue through fines, then this requires a one-time adjustment to their budget. But this is good as it just means that the cost of running their agencies becomes more transparent.
[+] [-] chrishynes|11 years ago|reply
Case in point: the many small towns that get a substantial chunk of their overall revenue from fines and police action --https://www.google.com/search?q=town+police+revenue
[+] [-] ashark|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|11 years ago|reply
I'm sure Europe is much nicer if it's evident that you're from whatever country you're in.
(Not exactly on point, but, whatever: the TSA has nothing on Heathrow international terminal for intrusive, pointless, rude searches).
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zigurd|11 years ago|reply
Bonding tip-of-the-spear employees of the criminal justice system: cops, prosecutors, parole officers, prison guards. That way you can do away with qualified immunity, municipalities are not on the hook for paying settlements, and thugs price themselves out of the system.
Special prosecutors for police crimes.
[+] [-] jessriedel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vutekst|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enobrev|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/w...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-...
[+] [-] kenesom1|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.fatalencounters.org/shocking-police-homicide-perc...
[+] [-] kahirsch|11 years ago|reply
That sentence is completely different from "no criminal organization kills as many people as the police." While it is shockingly high, 3 to 8 percent is not 50%.
EDIT: Also, the majority of police victims are probably not "innocent" civilians, but armed, violent criminals.
[+] [-] mikerichards|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevebot|11 years ago|reply
I'm not saying were an Orwellian police state but at least we are headed that way.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username223|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kasbah|11 years ago|reply
At the same time I know of cases of people being imprisoned that should be receiving psychiatric care instead; so point 6 in the article struck me especially.
[+] [-] te_platt|11 years ago|reply
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy...
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|11 years ago|reply
I think the policing grows out of necessity. It's not as if there aren't lawless places where there is either little police or no police. Those places exist, for the most part, most people would choose to live in a different place where there are decently funded police. I'm not saying 'militarized' police are necessary or desired, but i think large societies need a force (people or robotic) which enforce the rules (reasonable/constitutionally sound) out by the population at large. Maybe a robotic force would be more impartial than people personafying the police force....
[+] [-] KevinEldon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuni-toko-tachi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SwellJoe|11 years ago|reply
Then again, the dialogue is still being controlled for enough of the population that the state line gets reproduced by a large number of people, possibly even the majority of people, in most instances where the state interests are at stake. Even seemingly without mainstream media, the message is well-controlled.
Some recent examples of a large percentage of people seemingly buying into the state story without question that I found unnerving: "North Korea was definitely responsible for the attack on Sony" (despite many technically savvy people having serious questions about that), "Michael Brown was definitely in a rage and running into a hail of bullets toward an armed police officer when he was killed" (despite significant evidence to the contrary), "Eric Garner wouldn't have been killed if he had just obeyed the law; it had nothing to do with his race", "Tamir Rice pulled a gun on cops" (despite video contradicting this claim).
[+] [-] angersock|11 years ago|reply
More importantly, though, it's still just a talking feel-good point: the fact of the matter is that if a cop can blow a hole in your baby with a flashbang during a no-knock warrant it doesn't matter a hoot in hell what news you subscribed to.
I wouldn't put these on the same level at all.
[+] [-] MarkMc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyl|11 years ago|reply
No thanks. People who provide these services do a better job than I ever will. I'm thankful that they are there, so I can focus all my energy on writing software.
[+] [-] SwellJoe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ossreality|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] omgtehblackbloc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonmd|11 years ago|reply
So let's imagine instead if the liberal media in the USA had global context instead of complaining because you have a functional police force with a few problems that need correcting.
tl;dr First world problems boohoo.
[+] [-] ende|11 years ago|reply
Burn it to the ground and start over.
[+] [-] Zigurd|11 years ago|reply