What would be different if there was no police

[Fragony]

Not anything, these hobby-bobby's are too dumb to do anything properly anyway. Private security can guard stores, communities can pay for surveillance, needs some changes but why are we giving money to disobedience tax exactly? Why would tax-collectors have a say into something they weren't trained for? Why do we need police?

Yes a gun debate, it should at least be tested to have no police and only guns, with private security patrolling the streets. What's the difference really de facto? Nothing, less fines but what else, it's all they know.

-castle law
-complete disbanding of police
-opening the security market

Why not?

[Lord of Lent]

Well, with a good citizen guard (that is actually protecting people instead of fining people for broken tail-lights) we do not really need police. The only problem is that private security will ask money for their services and some people may not be able to pay that...

But the poorer people could always start neighbourhood patrol...

[Fragony]

The poor are screwed anyway, police doesn't go to these area's. That is where they have to admit that they are of no use and should allow civilian guards, payed or not it doesn't really matter, the rich can afford better security anyway, and will.

[Husar]

So you're really in favour of having a Warlord in every part of the city with the different warlords fighting wars between one another? Some rich guy will buy himself enough mercenaries to try and control as large an area as possible, the mafia can just operate more openly and the citizens will have to dodge bullets and shoot back to prevent it. Of course you can solve this by fighting back with a militia but you can also die in said militia if the others are too strong, the police force are many, they have a monopole on power, they can draw forces from other cities if necessary etc. which is why it makes little sense to fight them openly, a local militia is a lot weaker than that.
That the police are not patrolling certain areas is a problem that isn't inherent to the concept of a police force, it's about how our police force is used, handled, trained, equipped and financed. In countries were there is no effective police force that establishes control of an area to keep the peace, it's usually the poor who are at the whim of marauding bandits, warlords and what not, now you can say that all our middle class citizens can afford a gun, but then when I murder someone two blocks away at night, who is going to find out it was me? There is noone to stop me from murdering again, noone who knows how to find me, there will just be a lynch mob that chooses the most unwanted person in the area, perhaps a stranger, and blames, then kills him.

[Fragony]

Yeah I prefer paying the maffia over having to pay police and the maffia, is that so odd. Every policeman costs you twice, got to pay his salary and the job he's doing, said job being writing fines. You are on your own anyway, police or no police.

[Lord of Lent]

There's no point in living like that. People simply have to come to an agreement if they want to live in peace. And the poor people are already forming mobs so I think privatising security isn't a bad idea.

[Fragony]

Absolutily awesome for the poor, the poorer the easier after all, actually collecting is a different agency, here at least. Police is just too useless to be of any use, too dumb and lazy. Guns please.

[naut]

Why not?

[bobbin]

Why do people think private security would fill the void? With no one watching over them they could do what ever the hell they liked and so would very quickly become protection rackets, also being private organisations they would undoubtably focus on the most profitable forms of policing ie: fines, lots of them.

So you would be paying extortionate sums for protection and they would only really focus getting more money from you through fines, it would be far far worse than the current situation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why do people think private security would fill the void? With no one watching over them they could do what ever the hell they liked and so would very quickly become protection rackets, also being private organisations they would undoubtably focus on the most profitable forms of policing ie: fines, lots of them.

So you would be paying extortionate sums for protection and they would only really focus getting more money from you through fines, it would be far far worse than the current situation.

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the police abuses thread. In the US, the police largely monitor and investigate themselves, so they can do a sham investigation of an officer killing someone for a door ringing prank and say nothing's wrong.

And police are already focused on fines; whether it be speed traps or asset seizure, which involves taking any money they find on a person without charging them with a crime. To stop that, we need to remove the incentive, which means police departments shouldn't get any of the money or items they seize or any of the fines they charge.

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability. We don't have that in the US for the police, though I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

CR

[jabarto]

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability.

Well spoken. It's nice to see that we can agree on some-

I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

welp

[Ironside]

Building on what already mentioned. Who will actually investigate the commited crimes properly and who will be getting those nice police powers in that case?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well spoken. It's nice to see that we can agree on some-

welp

It's quite easy to see; which does the government come down hardest on - private companies or other government agencies?

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

CR

[Husar]

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

Perhaps because it's America, where everybody hates and boycots the government as good as they can (except in times of war) so everything the government does is only half-arsed?
Despite the claims of some lunatic fringe, the police here is pretty okay, you get a few black sheep but overall police officers are very nice here.
A lot of the speed cameras set up here are set up by the local governments to make money, the police usually puts them up in places where a lot of accidents happen and it's mostly temporary, for a day or two, plus it's usually your own fault for going over the speed limit, can they fine you if you're below the speed limit in the US?
US cops are also much more on alert because everyone could have a weapon, they probably get trained thinking if they treat you nicely you will draw a gun and shoot them or something, you're the Wild West and it shows whenever there is a potential conflict. Then you also have a lot of emphasis on corporate identity everywhere, this could explain why they cover eachother, a completely overdone sense of being a collective.
The answer is not to abandon the police force, but to change it, change the training methods, instill in them not just the methods to overcome a gun-bearing lunatic but also a pride in serving the community, show them respect as a citizen for keeping you safe etc.
And kick everyone out who shows violent behaviour, the people overlooking the police force should primarily be interested in keeping a good image of the police force or they shouldn't have that job. the problems you mention are not inherent in any police force around the world, they are a problem with how your police force is organized, trained etc. IMO.

Private contractors have no moral responsibility towards anyone except the people paying them, how would the government control them if the government has no power to stop them if they refuse to be controlled? Or would you just send the national guard? Which, again, is not an option in all countries.

[bobbin]

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the police abuses thread. In the US, the police largely monitor and investigate themselves, so they can do a sham investigation of an officer killing someone for a door ringing prank and say nothing's wrong.

And police are already focused on fines; whether it be speed traps or asset seizure, which involves taking any money they find on a person without charging them with a crime. To stop that, we need to remove the incentive, which means police departments shouldn't get any of the money or items they seize or any of the fines they charge.

The answer, whether private or public security, is proper oversight and accountability. We don't have that in the US for the police, though I think it would be easier to get oversight on private companies than on the government police.

CR

My point wasn't that it doesn't happen with public police organizations but that it would be worse under private policing because they are driven by profit, this will undoubtably lead to to them over focusing on more profitable policing.

A similar situation can be seen in the pharmaceutical industry where companies spend disproportionate amounts of money on designing things like anti-obesity drugs because they are more profitable, rather than new antibiotics or HIV drugs that would do more good and save more lives.

Proper oversight is definitely a must but I don't think it would be any better for private companies, I mean look at the state the banks got into recently, it doesn't bear thinking about what would happen if something as vital as policing were to undergo a similar event.

In Britain we have the IPPC that does the job of "policing the police" although it's not very good at it (the recent case of Ian Tomlinson a rather shocking example), the problem is that the police don't do their job properly not that the concept of goverment policing is wrong.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's quite easy to see; which does the government come down hardest on - private companies or other government agencies?

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape the regulations put on the private financial industry? Why is Blackwater investigated for killing people but prosecuting attorneys can lie, hide exculpatory evidence, etc., and not be punished? If my statement is incorrect, why do police officers get away with things that private security officers would be thrown in jail for decades for?

CR

On the other hand which man with a gun is subject to proper Congressional oversight and scrutiny if Congress wants to: the soldier in the US Army, or the private contractor from Blackwater that Congress doesn't even know about unless it asks persisently? Hint it's not the Blackwater guy, he's just some random employee of some private company Congress can not exert direct influence on.

EDIT: What the USA would benefit from here is clearly a more centralised approach towards how police and attorneys are organised. This way the problem of accountability is solved more easily because it is clear who is responsible for what and it is possible to suspend or substitute a failing part in the chain more easily. But that requires cutting on the cherished state rights.

[Fragony]

Building on what already mentioned. Who will actually investigate the commited crimes properly and who will be getting those nice police powers in that case?

Civil court can investigate crimes And no police powers, at all, only surveillance.

[Ironside]

Civil court can investigate crimes And no police powers, at all, only surveillance.

So who will be legally able to stop that car with the criminal? Or arresting people outside the immidiate action to prevent a crime that leads to prison? Body search?

I take it the court i state owned and cooperates with the private companies for say practical use of warrants then? To be able to act on a warrent is a police power btw.

CR, if you privatize the police, who will take care of the fines? Or are all fine crimes going to be jail or decriminalized? Yes giving the police the abillity to gain money on some crimes is stupid, but I can't really find that getting a private company doing the same is going to improve the situation. I mean think of those poor shareholders.

[spmetla]

Well in a country farming region like mine I'd rather have police that patrol and are at least 30 minutes away then have it be completely wild west out here. We already have our guns and castle laws, but that doesn't stop there from drug addicts that go up and down the coast stealing cars and breaking in homes. Sure farmers could hire security guards but without a police force that has the legal authority to pursue people beyond property limits and piece together patterns to I don't see what would stop the criminals around here except getting in a shootout with them and winning. I don't want to have to execute a seven samurai script with my various neighbors every time there's a problem of crime waves.

Fines are annoying, but I rarely get any aside from parking tickets (damn fire hydrants), I'd rather know that my taxes go to a uniformly trained security/law enforcement force then have to hire bodyguards everytime I leave my property. Besides speeding (within the liberty limit of 5mph) and parking I obey all the laws and have had nothing but good service from the police, I appreciate their random roadblock/sobriety checks during the holidays and don't really mind the speed limits to much.

I see no advantage to a community of hundreds of small independent farmers having various private security guards instead of a police force, if you can't see the advantage to police in a city either then you seem to have lived a privileged life during which you've never needed them.

[Fragony]

So who will be legally able to stop that car with the criminal? Or arresting people outside the immidiate action to prevent a crime that leads to prison? Body search?

Private security can do that just as well, better because fining isn't of their job. Cheaper as well. Imho police has lost all creditable they are nothing but a nuissance. There is many that can go wrong, it takes a lot of personal responsibility towards the community of course, but like it is now a lot is also wrong. Worth experimenting with, a small or medium-sized town should be perfect as lab.

[rory_20_uk]

Using the UK as an example, if the Police were to be disbanded and a security firm were to get above itself, there is still MI5 and of course the Army. No, not a subtle tool but enough of a cudgel to keep the contractors in-line. In london rich areas are already paying for contractors to patrol the area. These receive a fraction of the pay that Plod does and do the same job (be seen in a hi-vis jacket). Are they detectives? No. Do they need to be? No.

Personally I think that local policing should be privatised and then the UK needs something like the FBI for the bigger crimes that the locals can't deal with.

This should also be coupled with a proper overhaul of laws, decriminalising drugs and prostitution to allow persons to focus on crimes.

Centre of town areas then face the real costs of cheap alcohol. No longer is it cross-subsidised by everyone else. Loads of drunk people = increased rates of crime disturbance. Local businesses will have to fork out to cover costs which will push up prices. Higher prices will mean less are attracted to cause problem, so an equilibrium will be reached (no one wants a riot that will destroy their business).

I imagine that crime in poor areas is more likely to be the drugs / prostitution / "antisocial behaviour" - you don't burgle someone who'se got nothing. So, by legalising the first two these will decrease in relevance. The third one is far harder to sort out. Unless it is thought that persons are coming in from affluent areas to cause havoc it's an in-area problem - but often extremely small in terms of numbers. If this lot were to be reported by those in the area and given tagged curfews this problem would reduce too. As Frag says, at the moment the police don't bother with these areas at all and so tumble in to worsening nightmares. Give the locals responsibility for themselves will help dispel apathy.

[Husar]

Or maybe the mob of poor drunk people will storm into the better neighborhoods, overwhelm the 4 security guards in front of your house and then take everything. the security guards on the other side of the street will just watch as they're not getting paid to guard that house.

Private security can do that just as well, better because fining isn't of their job.

Right now it's not their job, that's right, but if you give them more power they will gladly do that because they're all in it for the money.
Plus, if you're not fining people for reckless driving anymore, what do you think will happen to traffic accidents?

[rory_20_uk]

As opposed to now where there are precisely no police on the corner... Currently there are many more police on Monday morning than Friday night in many areas. Genius... If they were privately contracted they'd be more when required, not more when it was pleasant to be at work.

As you are probably aware, the area in a circle increases at a faster rate than the circumference. Areas would pool resources to keep as many on the edge as possible.

Reckless driving is a still a criminal offence. Offenders could then pay a large penalty and loose their license and car.

[bobbin]

It has occured to me that private policing has been tried before, it was the norm for many cities before the advent of state funded professional forces.
This book gives a good description of the how private policing operated in 18th century London, it also highlights the inherent flaws in the system and how it's failure to effectively police crime was the reason the state funded police was set up in the first place.

[rory_20_uk]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

[caravel]

I think the problem with 'modern' policing, at least over here anyway, is that it's focused around going through the motions of investigating crimes (after they happen) for the purposes of meeting targets, rather than providing a real visual deterrent. Which is why the poorer areas have now become run down and crime infested. Near to where I live, gangs of thugs now control the streets at night. People are afraid to go out late, public transport is also dangerous at night - welcome to 21st century urban Britain.

For the purposes of this visual deterrent, private security could fill the same role and at a far lower cost. The problem is that private security will only be there for those that can afford it. In a nutshell, those poor areas will still as dangerous as ever, while the well to do will have gated communities and private security guards.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Militia" police efforts can work to stop crime -- but their is a cost involved. Link

[bobbin]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

The capability to organise has indeed imporved vastly since then but that applies to everyone, criminals have benifited from this just as much as the police have.

It's also worth noting, as highlighted in the book with the case of Jonathan Wild, that the authorities were aware of the abuses taking place and took measures to try and stamp them out, but in the end they didn't work and the system became untenable.

[Slyspy]

The book illustrates the lack of any centralised police records or even the ability to enforce laws over a distance. These are not issues today as they were solved over 200 years ago. In the case it was solved by nationalising the whole enterprise, but we do have more modern forms of communication now that mean that smaller entities can work together to effectively form a greater whole.

I hope that things such as oversight have improved over the last 200 years. Even if a large amount of policing were to be outsourced, there would still be several other institutions that would be used to keep them in line - indeed, the existing ones that police the police would be used.

I'm not convinced. If the reforms of the past created a more organised police force through nationalisation, and if the current forms of oversight would still be necessary (and funded by who?) then why are you suggesting privatisation? I'm not seeing it.

You think that private firms would provide a presence on every street? I don't see it happening, especially in less well off areas. In my cynical opion they'd do as little as possible for as much cash as possible. Who would have oversight where areas overlap, or in which chases or investigations cross operational borders? Further more, the chances are that in order to provide decent coverage the government would end up subsidising the system anyway.

[Megas Methuselah]

This is a scary idea. I know the police are a pain in the ass, but one of the core definitions of the state is having a monopoly on violence. Now, I know Canada isn't a perfect society (trust me, I grew up on the ******* bottom of it), but without the coppers... Shit, man, I don't even wanna think about it.

Needless to say, I'd build a huge, stone wall around my property. Oh, wait! I'm too poor to afford that sort of fortification. I also don't have any private property that I know of. The best bet I've got to survive is to move back to the First Nation reserve land, join the militia that would no doubt be raised there under these circumstances, and take my university classes online. But there's a problem here, see? We'll get a bunch of militant indians with guns. The last time that happened, the Canadian Army had to be brought in and the country was falling apart that year.

Yeah, it wouldn't be so pretty. That's why Canada enforces its monopoly on violence.