• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This city disbanded its police department 7 years ago. Here's what happened next

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
84,320
Reaction score
77,159
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This city disbanded its police department 7 years ago. Here's what happened next - CNN

(CNN)Last week, Minneapolis officials confirmed they were considering a fairly rare course of action: disbanding the city police department.
It's not the first locale to break up a department, but no cities as populous have ever attempted it. Minneapolis city council members haven't specified what or who will replace it if the department disbands.
Camden, New Jersey, may be the closest thing to a case study they can get.

The city, home to a population about 17% of Minneapolis' size, dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable.

Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US.
Now, seven years after the old department was booted, the city's crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It's a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago. Here's how they did it.
Click to expand...
Here is an interesting study on a city previously disbanding their police department.
 
Sadly these are the thing the right doesn't want to see happen. When they think law and order they think overwhelming police presence. Police using force on 'criminals'. The right refuses to acknowledge that getting arrested does not make a person a criminal.

Good for camden and any other city that tries to improve it's local police force to work with the people, not against them.
 
Napoleon said:
It’s hard to tell if replacing local police with county police is an example of what the abolish police folks mean. Camden is still one of the nation’s most dangerous cities having the third highest murder rate in the country.
Click to expand...

Realistically, even if something entirely new replaces the police, its going to need to have similar powers. I am not sure its possible to have a different type of organization, at least I am not aware of any historical precedent for any larger population centers. Law enforcement either tends to be police or secret police, choose one.
 
It is time for this to happen across the nation, out with the old and bring in a better model of law enforcement.
 
OrphanSlug said:
It is time for this to happen across the nation, out with the old and bring in a better model of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

That would be the advantage, it gets the union out and sets everything to a new and cleaner model. The union will come back of course, but everything (at least in human society) is cyclical anyway.
 
tacomancer said:
Realistically, even if something entirely new replaces the police, its going to need to have similar powers. I am not sure its possible to have a different type of organization, at least I am not aware of any historical precedent for any larger population centers. Law enforcement either tends to be police or secret police, choose one.
Click to expand...

That’s a good point. Maybe a local police force isn’t necessary for a place like Camden (population 77,000) but try something like that in a place like Chicago and it would be absolute mayhem. I’m also not sure why anyone thinks that abolishing police entirely and replacing them with the general population is a good idea.
 
Napoleon said:
That’s a good point. Maybe a local police force isn’t necessary for a place like Camden (population 77,000) but try something like that in a place like Chicago and it would be absolute mayhem. I’m also not sure why anyone thinks that abolishing police entirely and replacing them with the general population is a good idea.
Click to expand...

In a larger city, it would have to be disbanding and replacing individual precincts while other precincts gain extra territory during the transition phase, I would suspect. You would probably start with breaking it up into multiple police forces and then rebuild them one by one (to get it past the courts if nothing else), which would also break up any central staff that was problematic and have the whole thing run by a council for a period. It would be a logistical ****show but it would be possible.
 
tacomancer said:
That would be the advantage, it gets the union out and sets everything to a new and cleaner model. The union will come back of course, but everything (at least in human society) is cyclical anyway.
Click to expand...

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm against a union in this particular segment of society. Considering the power they wield and the authorities they are granted (with good reason), they need to be answerable to the public. Union protection, in my opinion, is a big problem here.
 
fireflygmf said:
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm against a union in this particular segment of society. Considering the power they wield and the authorities they are granted (with good reason), they need to be answerable to the public. Union protection, in my opinion, is a big problem here.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's their endorsement of politicians that is the problem. Outlaw that
 
fireflygmf said:
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm against a union in this particular segment of society. Considering the power they wield and the authorities they are granted (with good reason), they need to be answerable to the public. Union protection, in my opinion, is a big problem here.
Click to expand...

I think the unions are important, but like any power structure, there is inherent danger if it sets up an us vs them mentality which often happens in unions. There are remedies to that, such as making sure the police live in their neighborhoods of responsibility and are required to do charity work (paid).
 
vegas giants said:
Not really. It's their endorsement of politicians that is the problem. Outlaw that
Click to expand...

Do you mean that the police forces publicly endorses certain politicians? If so, yeah, that's a big problem too.
 
fireflygmf said:
Do you mean that the police forces publicly endorses certain politicians? If so, yeah, that's a big problem too.
Click to expand...

Without that the union has much less power. They cant strike. It's that they effectively sell their endorsement and no politician seeking reelection wants to lose that
 
Napoleon said:
It’s hard to tell if replacing local police with county police is an example of what the abolish police folks mean. Camden is still one of the nation’s most dangerous cities having the third highest murder rate in the country.
Click to expand...

One very important metric was vastly improved after the Camden police department "reform" was done - the conviction (solve?) rate for homicides (and other violent crimes) went way up. That can only be accomplished with citizen (community?) cooperation, it takes time and effort to get that very necessary citizen (community?) cooperation (trust?) and to overcome the "snitches get stitches" nonsense. It is essential that the local police officers are seen as contributing members of the community and not as its enemies.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One very important metric was vastly improved after the Camden police department "reform" was done - the conviction (solve?) rate for homicides (and other violent crimes) went way up. That can only be accomplished with citizen (community?) cooperation, it takes time and effort to get that very necessary citizen (community?) cooperation (trust?) and to overcome the "snitches get stitches" nonsense. It is essential that the local police officers are seen as contributing members of the community and not as its enemies.
Click to expand...

Police brutality cases went down by 95%
 
When I hear of people discussing disbanding police departments, I think of Winston Churchill's quote,
Quote by Winston Churchill: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men ...”
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
The police, are those rough men(and women) who stand between polite society,
and those who would harm us or take our property, simply because they could, and there was no one to stop them.
We can call the police by whatever name we choose, but the need of their services still remains.
Within our society is a tiny minority spread across all races, that have demonstrated that they have no regard
for the life and property rights of others.
What serves as a conscience for those lacking a moral compass is the fear of the ramifications if they are caught.
Someone or something, needs to be there to instill that fear!
 
From this:
Lawsuits filed against the department uncovered that officers routinely planted evidence on suspects, fabricated reports and committed perjury. After the corruption was exposed, courts overturned the convictions of 88 people, the ACLU reported in 2013.
Click to expand...

To this:

Cappelli credits the improvement to new "community-oriented policing," which prizes partnership and problem-solving over violence and punishment.

It starts from an officer's first day: When a new recruit joins the force, they're required to knock on the doors of homes in the neighborhood they're assigned to patrol, he said. They introduce themselves and ask neighbors what needs improving.

Training emphasizes deescalation, he said, and the department's use of force policy makes clear that deadly force is the last option.
Click to expand...

Shows it can be done with the right plan and community backing.
 
longview said:
When I hear of people discussing disbanding police departments, I think of Winston Churchill's quote,
Quote by Winston Churchill: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men ...”
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
The police, are those rough men(and women) who stand between polite society,
and those who would harm us or take our property, simply because they could, and there was no one to stop them.
We can call the police by whatever name we choose, but the need of their services still remains.
Within our society is a tiny minority spread across all races, that have demonstrated that they have no regard
for the life and property rights of others.
What serves as a conscience for those lacking a moral compass is the fear of the ramifications if they are caught.
Someone or something, needs to be there to instill that fear!
Click to expand...

Fear of LEOs is what contributes to (causes?) riots, looting and burning. The police are obviously not able to personally witness most crimes, thus they must gain the trust of those citizens (community members) who can provide that critical testimony to secure a (criminal) conviction. That citizen (community) cooperation is not going to be gained out of fear of the criminal "just us" system - that cooperation can only be gained out of trust in and respect for our criminal justice system which starts with the actions of LEOs.
 
The police don't create the thugs, crooks and thieves who permeate our cities ..places like Chicago and Baltimore are war
zones where a pair of new nikes might cost you your life. A new kind of police force won't change anything in these **** holes
where life is cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom