I would assume that coreander would have some agency meant to put criminals in jail. "Defund the Police" doesn't mean "Crime is legal".

I would ask that question to them, I guess.

Yeah, and that agency would have to catch the criminals, which is probably hard to do with little or no funding. Tang, I don't think you are advocating eliminating the police all together, but it seems that coreander is. (Although I have him/her/them blocked and read very few of his/her/their posts, so I could be wrong)

To be clear, I do not support defunding the police, at least at a national scale. Call me a defund skeptic. However, I don't think pretending that society would collapse if we defunded the police is a rational or effective argument.

I'm curious what coreander's answer would be.

Personally I don't think society would collapse, but I also don't think it would be all sweetness and light. I don't really care what coreander's answer would be.

Defunding the police would allow our cities to invest in education and public service programs that would significantly reduce crime and the need for police. As some have stated already, defunding the police does not mean eliminating them entirely. We just use the funds normally allocated to large guns and body armor in much more pro-social ways.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/22/2020 6:04:00 PM (view original):
um, don't the police have to catch someone before that someone can face prison time? Or do they voluntarily turn themselves in?

Prisons predate police in this country by hundreds of years.

More like a hundred or so, prisons were first put into place in the 1700's and police the 1800's, right?

Police to capture runaway slaves and protect the property rights of the rich white upper class.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/22/2020 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Tang already answered this. People just aren't that bad.

Look, I've already expressed my opinion about this "defund the police" business. An ~15% average increase in spending on policing in the 90s resulted in a >75% reduction in homicides, including about 8000 fewer homicides per year with black victims. Defunding the police is not going to help vulnerable populations, even in the more moderate sense of "reduce funding for the police." Several economists have done studies in the past ~15 years demonstrating that there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between police funding and crime rates. This at least strongly suggests that people are responding to the risk/reward balance - make it harder to get away with murder, and less people get murdered.

But the ceiling isn't that high. Let's try to be realistic. Most US cities didn't have professional police until the mid- to late-19th century. Many rural areas didn't have police until well into the 20th century. It's not like the average family was experiencing regular burglary, rape, and murder. Neurotypical human beings are built to be pro-social. We're willing to push the rules, but not totally break them until we're very desperate. The founding fathers left lots of correspondence records. They didn't seem to spend a lot of time fretting about being pillaged and murdered in their beds. I think the suggestion that without police everyone should expect their kids to be napped, their wives to be raped, and their TVs to be stolen is incredibly unrealistic. Crime rates would rise, but that doesn't mean everyone would be routinely victimized.

Our you seriously trying to compare societal actions of the founding fathers, or even the late 19th or 20th century to now?
If people behaved towards each other more like they did then, we wouldn't have a lot of today's problems, and I'd understand the thought.
Now we have people looting and burning businesses of the exact people they supposedly support.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/22/2020 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Tang already answered this. People just aren't that bad.

Look, I've already expressed my opinion about this "defund the police" business. An ~15% average increase in spending on policing in the 90s resulted in a >75% reduction in homicides, including about 8000 fewer homicides per year with black victims. Defunding the police is not going to help vulnerable populations, even in the more moderate sense of "reduce funding for the police." Several economists have done studies in the past ~15 years demonstrating that there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between police funding and crime rates. This at least strongly suggests that people are responding to the risk/reward balance - make it harder to get away with murder, and less people get murdered.

But the ceiling isn't that high. Let's try to be realistic. Most US cities didn't have professional police until the mid- to late-19th century. Many rural areas didn't have police until well into the 20th century. It's not like the average family was experiencing regular burglary, rape, and murder. Neurotypical human beings are built to be pro-social. We're willing to push the rules, but not totally break them until we're very desperate. The founding fathers left lots of correspondence records. They didn't seem to spend a lot of time fretting about being pillaged and murdered in their beds. I think the suggestion that without police everyone should expect their kids to be napped, their wives to be raped, and their TVs to be stolen is incredibly unrealistic. Crime rates would rise, but that doesn't mean everyone would be routinely victimized.

Our you seriously trying to compare societal actions of the founding fathers, or even the late 19th or 20th century to now?
If people behaved towards each other more like they did then, we wouldn't have a lot of today's problems, and I'd understand the thought.
Now we have people looting and burning businesses of the exact people they supposedly support.

P.S. You know I don't read anything tang posts, and don't really care about his naive, what I'm sure says "People are all really swell." reply.

Posted by tangplay on 6/23/2020 1:45:00 AM (view original):
More like a hundred or so, prisons were first put into place in the 1700's and police the 1800's, right?

I know the Public Gaol in Colonial Williamsburg was built at the very beginning of the 18th century. It probably wasn't the first jail in the colonies, but I don't know that for sure.

I think the first fully professional police force was formed in Boston around 1840. But Philadelphia had sort of semi-professional constabulary before that.

Posted by all3 on 6/23/2020 7:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/22/2020 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/21/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2020 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/20/2020 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody took the Purge movies too seriously.

What would stop it from becoming reality?

(I'd really LOVE to hear the newby try to explain, but you're fair and rational, so go ahead.)

Other responses, but no effort at all to answer this. Wonder why.

Tang already answered this. People just aren't that bad.

Look, I've already expressed my opinion about this "defund the police" business. An ~15% average increase in spending on policing in the 90s resulted in a >75% reduction in homicides, including about 8000 fewer homicides per year with black victims. Defunding the police is not going to help vulnerable populations, even in the more moderate sense of "reduce funding for the police." Several economists have done studies in the past ~15 years demonstrating that there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between police funding and crime rates. This at least strongly suggests that people are responding to the risk/reward balance - make it harder to get away with murder, and less people get murdered.

But the ceiling isn't that high. Let's try to be realistic. Most US cities didn't have professional police until the mid- to late-19th century. Many rural areas didn't have police until well into the 20th century. It's not like the average family was experiencing regular burglary, rape, and murder. Neurotypical human beings are built to be pro-social. We're willing to push the rules, but not totally break them until we're very desperate. The founding fathers left lots of correspondence records. They didn't seem to spend a lot of time fretting about being pillaged and murdered in their beds. I think the suggestion that without police everyone should expect their kids to be napped, their wives to be raped, and their TVs to be stolen is incredibly unrealistic. Crime rates would rise, but that doesn't mean everyone would be routinely victimized.

Our you seriously trying to compare societal actions of the founding fathers, or even the late 19th or 20th century to now?
If people behaved towards each other more like they did then, we wouldn't have a lot of today's problems, and I'd understand the thought.
Now we have people looting and burning businesses of the exact people they supposedly support.

P.S. You know I don't read anything tang posts, and don't really care about his naive, what I'm sure says "People are all really swell." reply.

Not much of a history guy are ya?

Lol, #nailedit

Coreander has more credibility than all3 at this point.

Very arguable.