So abolish police forces and replace them with militia? What’s the difference?
Okay, the big difference I can see is accountability. Police forces tend to have immunity or at least functional immunity, you saw that with the Renee Good execution in Minnesota. With a militia, without a police group protecting them, if they executed someone in the streets, they would theoretically be held accountable.
They also wouldn’t get those sweet benefits, either.
Oh, and it sounds a lot like lynch mobs. We gotta be careful we aren’t advocating for mob rule. If a guy is caught messing with someone’s child, I’m all for the mob stringing them up and whatever, but if they start going on allegations and being led by shady people or organisations, then we have a problem, and arguably a worse one.
So abolish police forces and replace them with militia? What’s the difference?
Cherán did this in 2011. The difference is massive. Crime dropped massively, and the community trust their militia. “Right now there is no crime. These days, it doesn’t get worse that a brawl. A bar fight, a street fight.” Their homicide rate is (last I remember) the lowest in their state and among the lowest in the country.
It certainly helps that they didn’t just drive out police, but also political parties, implementing their own direct democracy.
No, “mob rule” or community defence is exactly what we need. You’ve been taught it’s a dirty word, it’s not.
The choices of how crimes are handled are best handled at the local level. The people living in the same places as the victims and perpetrators know best how to deal with each instance. Once you absolve that power to a police force people stop taking personal responsibility for their wellbeing and that of their community. The loss of sense of community is the worst thing that can happen for stopping crime.
This already plays out today in places such as the Zapatista autonomous territory in the Chiapas. There they work on a reformation model, with the community patrolling and defending itself, the guilty are still judged and sentenced by their community in fair trials. It’s a far more just system then the “justice” model we employ.
As for violent axe murderers who are irredeemable, those account for 0.3-3% (recidivism rate) of 0.43% (homicide rate) of all crimes.
The choices of how crimes are handled are best handled at the local level. The people living in the same places as the victims and perpetrators know best how to deal with each instance. Once you absolve that power to a police force people stop taking personal responsibility for their wellbeing and that of their community. The loss of sense of community is the worst thing that can happen for stopping crime.
Okay, now imagine living in a majority MAGA city. They have a great sense of community and have determined that you are a threat. Specific reasons don’t matter, they know best though.
The question this notion leaves me with is this: how does this style of a system deal with cases where its not so much one criminal, but the community itself, or someone with power in or over the community, that’s in the wrong? This covers a few different types of scenario; cases where a “cult” (doesn’t have to be a religious type group per se, but more high-control social groups that grant a leader significant power) has high membership in a given community and whose leaders abuse that status, cases of organized crime where a gang or mafia style group might have significant numbers within a community or community leaders in their pocket or just enough firepower that they’d win against the locals in a fight, and cases where a local culture springs up that enables some kind of abuse as a norm (as an example of what I mean with this, there’s the case of Pitcairn island, in which a small and isolated community developed a culture of sexual abuse, such that when it finally attracted outside attention and intervention, about half of the adult men on the islands were charged.) If left entirely to itself for justice, is it not likely that in cases like this, the response by the community will oftenbe to allow abuse to continue, given the percentage of the community involved and their social standing?)
Mind, this is still an exceptional type of scenario, and I do agree that for many crimes, especially more minor offenses or those committed by lone individuals, keeping things to a local level probably works better than involving an outside organization that can’t easily account for nuance and context. However, I’m still left feeling that there are plenty of cases where those in the wrong simply will have more power, be it social standing or some kind of direct influence, over their community than the victims and those who believe them do, and in those cases, there’s utility in having a higher level to appeal to if justice on the local level is denied.
So abolish police forces and replace them with militia? What’s the difference?
Okay, the big difference I can see is accountability. Police forces tend to have immunity or at least functional immunity, you saw that with the Renee Good execution in Minnesota. With a militia, without a police group protecting them, if they executed someone in the streets, they would theoretically be held accountable.
They also wouldn’t get those sweet benefits, either.
Oh, and it sounds a lot like lynch mobs. We gotta be careful we aren’t advocating for mob rule. If a guy is caught messing with someone’s child, I’m all for the mob stringing them up and whatever, but if they start going on allegations and being led by shady people or organisations, then we have a problem, and arguably a worse one.
Cherán did this in 2011. The difference is massive. Crime dropped massively, and the community trust their militia. “Right now there is no crime. These days, it doesn’t get worse that a brawl. A bar fight, a street fight.” Their homicide rate is (last I remember) the lowest in their state and among the lowest in the country.
It certainly helps that they didn’t just drive out police, but also political parties, implementing their own direct democracy.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SrPBdLiqMb0
No, “mob rule” or community defence is exactly what we need. You’ve been taught it’s a dirty word, it’s not.
The choices of how crimes are handled are best handled at the local level. The people living in the same places as the victims and perpetrators know best how to deal with each instance. Once you absolve that power to a police force people stop taking personal responsibility for their wellbeing and that of their community. The loss of sense of community is the worst thing that can happen for stopping crime.
This already plays out today in places such as the Zapatista autonomous territory in the Chiapas. There they work on a reformation model, with the community patrolling and defending itself, the guilty are still judged and sentenced by their community in fair trials. It’s a far more just system then the “justice” model we employ.
As for violent axe murderers who are irredeemable, those account for 0.3-3% (recidivism rate) of 0.43% (homicide rate) of all crimes.
Okay, now imagine living in a majority MAGA city. They have a great sense of community and have determined that you are a threat. Specific reasons don’t matter, they know best though.
Imagine living there today. Don’t think a maga cop is going to help you?
The question this notion leaves me with is this: how does this style of a system deal with cases where its not so much one criminal, but the community itself, or someone with power in or over the community, that’s in the wrong? This covers a few different types of scenario; cases where a “cult” (doesn’t have to be a religious type group per se, but more high-control social groups that grant a leader significant power) has high membership in a given community and whose leaders abuse that status, cases of organized crime where a gang or mafia style group might have significant numbers within a community or community leaders in their pocket or just enough firepower that they’d win against the locals in a fight, and cases where a local culture springs up that enables some kind of abuse as a norm (as an example of what I mean with this, there’s the case of Pitcairn island, in which a small and isolated community developed a culture of sexual abuse, such that when it finally attracted outside attention and intervention, about half of the adult men on the islands were charged.) If left entirely to itself for justice, is it not likely that in cases like this, the response by the community will oftenbe to allow abuse to continue, given the percentage of the community involved and their social standing?)
Mind, this is still an exceptional type of scenario, and I do agree that for many crimes, especially more minor offenses or those committed by lone individuals, keeping things to a local level probably works better than involving an outside organization that can’t easily account for nuance and context. However, I’m still left feeling that there are plenty of cases where those in the wrong simply will have more power, be it social standing or some kind of direct influence, over their community than the victims and those who believe them do, and in those cases, there’s utility in having a higher level to appeal to if justice on the local level is denied.