Feasibility of abolishing the police in a controversial debate
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I've seen several arguments regarding the whole policing situation in America in various online mediums, and wanted to present some of them to this wonderful community to scrutinise.
"If we abolish the police, we would actually be better off as a society, because we would be safer. Right now, the police budget takes up a lot of money. If we abolished it, we could invest that money into social programs like education, healthcare and welfare, thus raising everyone's standard of living - especially the poor, who are disproportionately affected by crime. Thus, incentives to commit crime would be reduced, meaning less crime is committed. Less crime means fewer criminals, eliminating the need for a police force in the first place."
I can already see multiple problems with this argument:
- Firstly, abolishing the police would create a power vacuum. Since the law typically does not permit citizens to make arrests, gather intelligence on criminals, or prosecute, no one would be able to enforce law in the meantime.
- Secondly, as a result of the power vacuum, crime could flourish, causing unseen costs in terms of criminal damage in the absence of the police. This is an example of quantitative myopia; where seen costs (cost of policing) are taken into account, but unseen costs (cost of crime) are ignored. Effectively, Cherry Picking.
- Thirdly, the argument overlooks the non-crime-related aspects of the police. For instance, they often visit schools to educate students about the law, how to stay safe online, and more.
- Fourthly, there are other ways to raise money for social goods without axing a key service like the police - raising tax (income, corporation, etc) and closing tax loopholes come to mind.
Questions, then:
- Is my analysis valid, logically speaking?
- Would the argument be significantly stronger if it said "defund" rather than abolish? I think this would be the case, given that defunding implies reduced police spending rather than getting rid of the construct entirely.
- Have I strawmanned here? In some circles, 'abolish' implies getting rid of the current police layout and replacing it with a new one.
Comments on Question
Answers
2Of course, lots of politics and opinions in this argument. Logically, however, there is a major problem:
Less crime means fewer criminals, eliminating the need for a police force in the first place.
No. Less crime would reduce the need for a police force ("need" as measured by how often they are needed,) not eliminate it.
Keep the police, or abolish the police is structuring the argument into a False Dilemma fallacy, as there are many other options within a gradient such as defunding and or to what degree.
"If we abolish the police, we would actually be better off as a society, because we would be safer."
This seems like a circular statement. (If we abolish the police, we would be better, because we would be better.) I know I paraphrased there but only to clean it up to see the circular nature of the statement.
Essentially, the rest of their argument is also structured in a False Dilemma fallacy. Paraphrasing again here to clarify the fallacy better, "Either keep the police and remain poor and crime ridden, or abolish the police and eliminate poverty and crime."
There are many other options as you have pointed out such as raising taxes, defunding, raising money in other ways, creating new agencies, or even defunding or eliminating other policies and agencies just to name a few.
The police force is a relatively new concept. Before modern police there was just a local sheriff who was also probably a farmer or blacksmith. When the town had a problem with some criminal, he would gather up a posse of local men in the town to go get the criminal. Other than that only the wealthy could hire a private guard or mercenaries to protect them and their property. I believe the modern police force was started by the wealthy using tax funding to protect their property from poorer rioters who were rebelling instead of privately contracting them. Then I believe it evolved from there.
I'm not even sure if the concept of crime or criminals existed within pre-columbian Native American tribes? I think I have heard a Native American chief quote that says, "we did not have jails, therefore there were no criminals." Not sure if its a true quote or not.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
From just a quick skim, I saw something yesterday that I think it was Minnesota has a proposal to disband and replace the police. Without going too deep it's may be the only practicable solution as we've already seen that attempts to punish or implement change results in police union threats, solidarity for cops who are caught, and responding to criticism of police brutality with police brutality.