When you get right down to it my campaign is centered on the two most intrusive and oppressive arms of the New York City Government, that is the "Child Protective" functions of the Administration for Children's Services and the NYPD. Yes, there are other things I will address, especially the school system, but these two issues are the most contentious, most controversial ones. These two issues can define me as a "fringe" or even a "joke" candidate or as an almost prophetic and visionary presence on the campaign and in the city overall.
I will address the "Child Protection" issue further on, though it is entwined with the NYPD issue to a great extent.
A fellow named Adam Puff, who is said to be a historian, has taken on the question of whether or not a society needs a police force over on the Helium website. Let me share his thoughts with you and add my own comments in red.
Can any society exist without police?
RESULTS SO FAR:
| YES | 34% | 47 votes | Total: 138 votes | |
| NO | 66% | 91 votes |
You voted
on 03/03/13
on 03/03/13
Yes
Yes
by Adam Puff
Created on: May 20, 2011
Societies can exist without police. In fact, many societies throughout human histories have existed without police - including many Native American societies that had nothing like a police force - and the police force as we now have it in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is my opinion that, not only could a modern society exist without police, but that it would be better off entirely.
Bravo!
We should first consider what positive things have come as the result of police. They respond to crime and assist in tracking down suspects and bringing them to court. They may serve as a deterrent to crime in places where police are known to be present. Sometimes, they may even be able to stop crime on the spot. It must be acknowledge that there are severe limitations on how much they can actually stop crime and on their ability to serve as a deterrent to crime.
A well regulated armed citizenry with the power of citizen's arrest can do the very same. And at much less cost. Not only does the NYPD employ around 55,000 cops and civilians, it runs up enormous legal expenses with its thuggish brutal and callous conduct towards the general population. Mayor Bloomberg's new tack of denying all claims and forcing NYPD victims into court is as thuggish as is the NYPD, which he calls his private army.
Now, let’s consider some negative things that are due to the presence of police. There are many instances in which they use excessive force, sometimes against the innocent or people who are not actively resisting. Of course, in such encounters the “victim” is someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime. Furthermore, it must be noted that the “victim” of police brutality has no real recourse during the encounter, as any resistance can be used as an excuse for the police to use greater force.
Residents and visitors' human rights are routinely violated and people suffer insufferable humiliation, taking insult and beatings with no avenue of self defense or mitigation. People are now shot and killed in broad daylight by incompetent but expensively trained cops because these cops "are fearful."
An overly aggressive stance by law enforcement agents in their initial search into the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas was met with resistance and what followed is one of the greatest tragedies in recent American history. In considering the negatives that come with having a police force, we must not forget the burdensome presence of traffic cops who pull drivers over and issue them tickets. Usually going over the speed limit is the only cause for such a case, not necessarily doing anything actually dangerous. Drivers are given tickets and forced to give money to the state for their “crime” as well as being forced to pay court costs for a court encounter they have not requested. Even if the driver pays his ticket early without actually going to a traffic court, he often must still pay these court costs as if the court needs to be compensated for anything. It has not been adequately shown that traffic cops do anything to reduce traffic incidents, and they have mostly been used as collectors of a back-door tax.
Cops don't typically chase down reckless drivers.
What they do is set up silly traps to catch drivers stopping at a stop sign too far from the line, etc.
All of this leads to the question: Can society, without police, achieve the same positive aspects of having a police force while avoiding some of the drawbacks. I propose that we get rid of the police force and take our protection and defense into our own hands as individuals. Since no one really has a stake in how fast you go in a 55, the whole inconvenience of traffic cops is gone. Of course, no one wants total chaos, so we’re not going to see a bunch of people suddenly running red lights in busy intersections. People will have to be earning a living some way or another, and will not be going around being authoritarian and brutal to total strangers. Most importantly, in instances of aggression, the victims will have legal resource to fire back. In the absence of police, more people would take their own defense more seriously and criminals looking for an easy target would have to look a lot harder.
Puff proposes and individual self defense approach. I propose a communal and societal approach as well.
Most of the positive things about police are still present. An individual can defend himself better than a policeman, who cannot be omnipresent. Communities, who will desire order, will band together at the local level (much like a neighborhood watch program) to deter and deal with violent crime.
All people of all races and ethnicities must be encouraged to join in efforts to maintain safety in their communities and work places and the community patrols must have oversight of the city's government.
Let’s deal with a few claims likely to be made by someone supporting a police force. Many people believe that the police force exists to protect the citizens and keep them safe. If this is the case, they do not achieve it. They cannot respond to calls in a timely matter due to physical limitations. Very often, stopping crime is not a mandate given to police officers. It’s something that they do when they can, but that is also true of responsible armed citizens. The main purposes of the police force are to bring criminals to justice (by executing arrest warrants) and to perform other tasks for the state such as evictions, enforcement of traffic policy, and the like.
Another misconception is that without police, people would feel free to commit crime without considering the consequences. This is based on the erroneous assumption that the only (or at least primary) “consequence” of crime comes from the police. If the populous was more armed, that would be a major potential consequence. For less violent crimes (such as petty theft, or breaking a business deal), social rejection and lack of trust by others would be a major consequence. Another fallacy is that no one would try to prevent crime because it would not be their “job.” People act in their interests and desires besides just their “job,” so this is an especially silly argument. The same human desire that caused people to support the idea of a police force will lead many to be situationally aware and alert in their absence and respond to crime when they see it.
Communities can and should band together, functioning in a democratic fashion, to make decisions about consequences for crimes that center on restitution.
Finally, there is no good evidence that there is a correlation between increased police presence and decreased crime. It is patently absurd to think the police forces (which have not existed for centuries of human history) are required for society.
