Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs?

[ZiprHead]

Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs?

It’s not just Uvalde. Cops nationwide can’t stop crimes from happening or solve them once they’ve occurred.

prospect.org

People have every right to be concerned about rising murder rates. But another concerning statistic involves the fact that the nationwide “crime wave,” in both its real and imagined components, has been met with a similar nationwide collapse in “clearance rates,” the rate at which those crimes are “solved” via an arrest and a charge being brought (there are, of course, plenty of reasons to take issue with equating an arrest to a crime being solved—more on that later). According to the most recent data published by the FBI, the rates at which police forces are solving crimes have plunged to historic lows. In the case of murders and violent crime, clearance rates have dipped to just 50 percent, a startling decline from the 1980s, when police cleared 70 percent of all homicides.

It’s not just murder. Manslaughter is down to 69 percent clearance from 90 percent forty years ago. Clearances in assault and rape cases have dropped to 47 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Nonviolent property crimes like burglary (which involves illegally entering a property), theft (which involves taking property from another person), and motor vehicle theft are getting solved at a microscopic 14 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. According to “Crime and the Mythology of Police,” a recent article published in the Washington University Law Review by University of Utah law professor Shima Baradaran Baughman, “on a good year, police solve less than a quarter of reported cases.” And we haven’t seen good years lately.

On a city-by-city basis, these figures look even more galling. In San Francisco, supposedly in the midst of a historic crime spree that has been blamed on progressive district attorney Chesa Boudin (who faces a recall election next Tuesday), the Department of Police Accountability last year opened 595 cases looking into alleged police wrongdoing. By far, the largest percentage of those cases, 42.6 percent, were found to be related to “neglect of duty.” In 2016, neglect of duty counted for less than a third of cases. And according to city supervisor Hillary Ronen, of all the crimes reported in San Francisco in 2021, just 8.1 percent led to arrests, the lowest rate in a decade. In cities across the country, police forces are proving historically unwilling or unable to solve crimes.

It’s clear that those record police budgets aren’t keeping crime from happening, or else the alleged record crime wave that has been covered breathlessly by local and national media would not be happening. There is evidence that more resources specifically for investigative work can improve clearance rates, but that’s far different from what today’s police budgets prioritize—mostly presence on the streets.

Thoughts?

 

[Politesse]

Depends on what you consider their "job" to be. It was never really about preventing crime. They exist to be symbols of government control, and to punish the crimes of the poor after they happen. Conservatives will insist that this does reduce crime, but they still want the police there whether they are quantitatively reducing crime or not. Because what they really want is the symbolic representation of "being tough on crime", not being able to demonstrate that they have reduced it. Liberals really do want to see crime reduced, but for the most part believe just as passionately that the police, as avatars of the government, fundamentally mean well and just need a bit of education or correction to put them back on the straight and narrow again. Perhaps a weekend seminar or two so they won't be racist anymore.

 

[Gospel]

Depends on what you consider their "job" to be. It was never really about preventing crime.

It's not a far stretch to conclude there'd be substantially more crime if there was no such thing as police. I believe the mere existence of police prevents crime.

 

[Politesse]

Depends on what you consider their "job" to be. It was never really about preventing crime.

It's not a far stretch to conclude there'd be substantially more crime if there was no such thing as police. I believe the mere existence of police prevents crime.

So do a lot of people. And you may be right (though given the dearth of police-less states, I don't know how you would quantify this). But that's neither here or there, as the question is never whether to police but how. Not all policing is equally effective, and overfunding police departments in particular has not had the effect of making crime lower in places where it happens.

 

[prideandfall]

Thoughts?

1. police at their best are now, always have been, and always will be a domestic military force that exists to enforce the status quo: of a top-down predatory capitalist society that enriches a tiny minority at the expense of the vast majority.
when they act in this role, they sometimes kind of trip over their dicks and encourage social order and general welfare as an accidental part of maintaining the elitist hierarchy.

2. the majority of people who seek to become cops are meathead dipshit asshole bullies. while a miniscule number might be doe-eyed idealists who just want to be 'good cops' - this means that most of what the police get up to is institutional authoritarianism by the worst sacks of shit our society produces.

3. that the police are a good force in society that are here to help you is a lie that has been peddled for 100 years, and mainstream white culture bought into that lie with gusto.
with the internet now and the inability of the powerful to control what information people have access to, we're starting to see the police for what they actually are.

it's going to take a while yet for the public to shake itself out of the stupor that it has been living in, believing the whole 'protect and serve' fantasy they've been buying into their whole lives, but eventually the overwhelming evidence is going to become impossible to correct via cognitive dissonance.
but as this is happening, it's going to increasingly dissuade any decent honest people who want to be 'good cops' from joining, and existing police will be more and more populated by wannabe marines who view the public as the enemy.

as a parasitic system attached to society, police care about police, not about people who aren't police.
just a tick engorged with blood, they are no longer bothering (or capable) of hiding their presence from the host.

 

[Gospel]

I think one of the components of the decline in police success rate in solving crimes is the loss of public trust/involvement. If the public (I'm speaking personally now) feels like just being around police subjects them to being arrested and charged for something they won't offer aid for investigations. I got a lot of love for them and what they do but as soon as I know they are being called I'm outta there. I've managed to keep my record clean doing exactly this. I only talk to them when I have to & will never volunteer.

 

[prideandfall]

Depends on what you consider their "job" to be. It was never really about preventing crime.

It's not a far stretch to conclude there'd be substantially more crime if there was no such thing as police. I believe the mere existence of police prevents crime.

i think that's only true if you presume two things:
1. that the general framework of civilization remains vulture capitalism
2. that the removal of police is not replaced by anything else

imagining a scenario where the police just *poof* out of society and nothing else changes is a bit reductive i think, and not terribly helpful or relevant to envisioning the role or importance of cops in the modern world.

 

[Politesse]

I think one of the components of the decline in police success rate in solving crimes is the loss of public trust/involvement. If the public (I'm speaking personally now) feels like just being around police subjects them to being arrested and charged for something they won't offer aid for investigations. I got a lot of love for them and what they do but as soon as I know they are being called I'm outta there. I've managed to keep my record clean doing exactly this. I only talk to them when I have to & will never volunteer.

One of the reasons I'm glad I had some relatively rougher years in my life is that, had I never left the kind of well-heeled white suburbs I grew up in, I'm not confident I ever would have understood a post like this one. Not out of malice, but because different parts of the US experience policing in such fundamentally different ways, it's hard to bridge the gap between those experiences. I've never lived anywhere where people in general "don't want police". But I've been in plenty of places where people wish the police would stop harassing them over nothing and failing to show up when actual crimes happen. I can't even say it wasn't like that where I grew up, because I've retroactively come to realize that being Hispanic in the little town I grew up would itself have been a very different experience. But even in my little cowtown, it mattered which neighborhood you were in. Dad was actually friends with the "local officer"; he'd taken one of his classes back in the day, and it wasn't unusual for Dad to offer him a coffee if he stopped by.

But I mean, there was crime. There was oppression. Wage slaves were working the strawberry fields for a dollar a day less than a mile away, threatened with deportation if they dared to complain. We just never had much reason to hear about it if we didn't want to. The police were "on our side".

 

[Gospel]

Depends on what you consider their "job" to be. It was never really about preventing crime.

It's not a far stretch to conclude there'd be substantially more crime if there was no such thing as police. I believe the mere existence of police prevents crime.

i think that's only true if you presume two things:
1. that the general framework of civilization remains vulture capitalism
2. that the removal of police is not replaced by anything else

imagining a scenario where the police just *poof* out of society and nothing else changes is a bit reductive i think, and not terribly helpful or relevant to envisioning the role or importance of cops in the modern world.

Perhaps you can give an example of what police can be replaced with and what their purpose would be that wouldn't itself serve as a deterrent to crime?

Edit: Never mind. I didn't make the argument you think I made, so I really don't want to go down that road. If you think about it; even "uncivilized" African tribes from long before Europeans became a thing had police. I mean they weren't what we call the police today but they served as enforcers for their ruler of that time. I'm certain that all the historic rulers you can think of didn't need enforcers since the population abroad would just all do the right thing without it.

 

[Gospel]

I think one of the components of the decline in police success rate in solving crimes is the loss of public trust/involvement. If the public (I'm speaking personally now) feels like just being around police subjects them to being arrested and charged for something they won't offer aid for investigations. I got a lot of love for them and what they do but as soon as I know they are being called I'm outta there. I've managed to keep my record clean doing exactly this. I only talk to them when I have to & will never volunteer.

One of the reasons I'm glad I had some relatively rougher years in my life is that, had I never left the kind of well-heeled white suburbs I grew up in, I'm not confident I ever would have understood a post like this one. Not out of malice, but because different parts of the US experience policing in such fundamentally different ways, it's hard to bridge the gap between those experiences. I've never lived anywhere where people in general "don't want police". But I've been in plenty of places where people wish the police would stop harassing them over nothing and failing to show up when actual crimes happen.

I find it hard to believe that no one from the white suburbs has reason to feel the same way I do about the police. Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

 

[Politesse]

I think one of the components of the decline in police success rate in solving crimes is the loss of public trust/involvement. If the public (I'm speaking personally now) feels like just being around police subjects them to being arrested and charged for something they won't offer aid for investigations. I got a lot of love for them and what they do but as soon as I know they are being called I'm outta there. I've managed to keep my record clean doing exactly this. I only talk to them when I have to & will never volunteer.

One of the reasons I'm glad I had some relatively rougher years in my life is that, had I never left the kind of well-heeled white suburbs I grew up in, I'm not confident I ever would have understood a post like this one. Not out of malice, but because different parts of the US experience policing in such fundamentally different ways, it's hard to bridge the gap between those experiences. I've never lived anywhere where people in general "don't want police". But I've been in plenty of places where people wish the police would stop harassing them over nothing and failing to show up when actual crimes happen.

I find it hard to believe that no one from the white suburbs has reason to feel the same way I do about the police. Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

Not no one, and obviously I can't speak for the whole country, but... man, propaganda can be shockingly effective when people from backgrounds differing don't have many opportunities to talk to one another. If the police show up in minutes when you call, and their guns are always in their holsters when they do, why would it occur to you that not everyone gets the same response? Growing up, even when I'd hear about, say, police oppression in Montgomery, I'd be like "wow, things must be really awful in the South", not "gee, I wonder if the neighbors ever have to put up with this mierda".

 

[prideandfall]

Perhaps you can give an example of what police can be replaced with and what their purpose would be that wouldn't itself serve as a deterrent to crime?

so i have two thoughts, and then i'll answer your question:

firstly, there's two types of errant behavior in society: those that are self correcting, and those that require intervention.
by 'self correcting' i mean either that parties resolve the issue between themselves, or the issue is never resolved but is ultimately inconsequential.
the police are not necessary for self-correcting situations, but will insert themselves into it if they come across it because the police think they *own* society and have the right to make themselves involved in literally anything that happens, anywhere, ever.

secondly, i don't feel that police serve as a deterrent to crime... at least, not 'police' as in 'uniformed meatheads who can legally and culturally do whatever they want to you at any time'.
police are just school bullies given social authority, and like a school bully the first and biggest threat to you is that they become aware of you. police knowing you exist is a huge danger to most people and a red flag that something about your life is about to get worse.
so i don't think police deter crime really, i think that crime that requires intervention is always about one of two things: crazy unreasonable people, or predators within our society who aren't rich.
(well 3 things but the 3rd one is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig fuckin' derail i won't get into right now)

crazy people are going to crazy no matter what and they don't stop and go 'oh shit maybe i shouldn't be crazy or else the cops will get me'.
predators are no different from the other predators who steal from you or exploit you every day, the only difference is that usually they are poor and so them harming you for their own enrichment is not part of 'the plan' - the cops will come down on you like the hammer of god if you're poor and try to improve your situation, because that steps on the privilege of the true masters of the police, the rich who are doing the same thing.

which brings us to your question and my answer:
the police could largely be replaced with people just handling their own shit (which is an incredibly simplistic statement that has a bajillion qualifiers, but you didn't ask me for a college thesis paper so i'm not writing down every single caveat just yet)
the police could also largely be replaced by removing the millennia-old tradition in human society of the overwhelmingly vast percent of humanity suffering in filth so that a handful of fuckwads can live like opulent gods.

most of what police have to deal with are the errant results of a downtrodden mass desperately flailing against the hell that is its life.
petty theft, mischief, domestic unrest - these are issues that are systemic society wide problems when most of your society is the bottom rung of a system designed from the ground up to destroy them in order to enrich a handful of white pieces of shit.

remove the impetus to behave in a way that harms their neighbors and most people won't bother.

 

[Gospel]

Perhaps you can give an example of what police can be replaced with and what their purpose would be that wouldn't itself serve as a deterrent to crime?

so i have two thoughts, and then i'll answer your question:

firstly, there's two types of errant behavior in society: those that are self correcting, and those that require intervention.
by 'self correcting' i mean either that parties resolve the issue between themselves, or the issue is never resolved but is ultimately inconsequential.
the police are not necessary for self-correcting situations, but will insert themselves into it if they come across it because the police think they *own* society and have the right to make themselves involved in literally anything that happens, anywhere, ever.

secondly, i don't feel that police serve as a deterrent to crime... at least, not 'police' as in 'uniformed meatheads who can legally and culturally do whatever they want to you at any time'.
police are just school bullies given social authority, and like a school bully the first and biggest threat to you is that they become aware of you. police knowing you exist is a huge danger to most people and a red flag that something about your life is about to get worse.
so i don't think police deter crime really, i think that crime that requires intervention is always about one of two things: crazy unreasonable people, or predators within our society who aren't rich.
(well 3 things but the 3rd one is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig fuckin' derail i won't get into right now)

crazy people are going to crazy no matter what and they don't stop and go 'oh shit maybe i shouldn't be crazy or else the cops will get me'.
predators are no different from the other predators who steal from you or exploit you every day, the only difference is that usually they are poor and so them harming you for their own enrichment is not part of 'the plan' - the cops will come down on you like the hammer of god if you're poor and try to improve your situation, because that steps on the privilege of the true masters of the police, the rich who are doing the same thing.

which brings us to your question and my answer:
the police could largely be replaced with people just handling their own shit (which is an incredibly simplistic statement that has a bajillion qualifiers, but you didn't ask me for a college thesis paper so i'm not writing down every single caveat just yet)
the police could also largely be replaced by removing the millennia-old tradition in human society of the overwhelmingly vast percent of humanity suffering in filth so that a handful of fuckwads can live like opulent gods.

most of what police have to deal with are the errant results of a downtrodden mass desperately flailing against the hell that is its life.
petty theft, mischief, domestic unrest - these are issues that are systemic society wide problems when most of your society is the bottom rung of a system designed from the ground up to destroy them in order to enrich a handful of white pieces of shit.

remove the impetus to behave in a way that harms their neighbors and most people won't bother.

So your answer is no, I do not have an example. Thanks.

 

[prideandfall]

So your answer is no, I do not have an example. Thanks.

my answer is that "give me an example" isn't something i can reply to without an enormous post qualifying a dozen other things in society.
it's a horribly complex issue, and what you're doing is basically saying that drinking chlorine will cure cancer, and if i disagree with you then give an example of something that DOES cure cancer.
it's just not that simple.

police exist in the US largely to keep the lower class in their place - the cops are there to keep the poors from getting uppity, and to be a constant threat against the poors against raising a hand against the rich.
that's my basic premise on the existence of cops, but to give you an example of what you could replace that with, i'd need you to be on board with my premise of what the cops are... my post was an attempt to lay that out so we were at least on the same page regarding the central concept.

so, what do we replace the cops with?
legally: UBI, robust social programs for housing and luxury, tightly regulated standards on breeding and child rearing.
culturally: stop worshipping at the altar of materialism, change our perception of the value of other humans from 'capital resource' to 'fellow companion in life', and replace the dead-eyed soulless zombie state most humans live in with an existence enriched by personal expression and satisfaction.

that would remove the circumstances by which most people are compelled to commit petty crime in the first place, which would remove the need for police.

 

[Ruth Harris]

My family has a long history of public service (military, police, firefighters, EMT’s). I currently have two close family members who are police officers. Another one recently retired from the police force. A fourth retired from the Marines then served as a police officer, was named chief of police in a small town but was fired because he wouldn’t bow to the local elite – and now serves on a fire department as an EMT. I was married to the assistant chief of our local fire department. I have had numerous friends and more distant family members in several police and fire departments over the years.

All of them have told me that what determines the character of the serving officers is the character of the person leading the department. Good officers will not serve under someone who does not have good character; they will go elsewhere. So basically you will find the problem officers bunched under a leader who lacks good character or does not have the will to enforce good character in their serving officers. Occasionally, you will see an officer who is not worthy of the job under a good leader as they have learned how to hide their true character.

Aside from that, the real issue is the political realities of serving. Policing is under civilian control – actually that should be political control. The issue there is that politicians hold the budget strings, and many of them don’t feel like funding training is a good use of their budget money. They want it used for highly visible physical items they can point to during their campaigns. So you have police officers who are basically getting on the job training, and they are being trained by people who probably don’t have good formal training themselves in many cases. Given this, no matter how good their character is they are not going to be capable of reliably responding to incidents involving the very real possibility of death or injury to themselves or others involved in it.

That is what needs to change. We need to demand that police officers and other emergency personnel receive high quality, ongoing training so they can respond promptly and appropriately to emergency situations. It should also go without saying that anyone serving in these capacities should also be a person who is of good character and not someone who has political connections or just wants personal power over others.

Ruth

 

[Gospel]

So your answer is no, I do not have an example. Thanks.

my answer is that "give me an example" isn't something i can reply to without an enormous post qualifying a dozen other things in society.
it's a horribly complex issue, and what you're doing is basically saying that drinking chlorine will cure cancer, and if i disagree with you then give an example of something that DOES cure cancer.
it's just not that simple.

police exist in the US largely to keep the lower class in their place - the cops are there to keep the poors from getting uppity, and to be a constant threat against the poors against raising a hand against the rich.
that's my basic premise on the existence of cops, but to give you an example of what you could replace that with, i'd need you to be on board with my premise of what the cops are... my post was an attempt to lay that out so we were at least on the same page regarding the central concept.

so, what do we replace the cops with?
legally: UBI, robust social programs for housing and luxury, tightly regulated standards on breeding and child rearing.
culturally: stop worshipping at the altar of materialism, change our perception of the value of other humans from 'capital resource' to 'fellow companion in life', and replace the dead-eyed soulless zombie state most humans live in with an existence enriched by personal expression and satisfaction.

that would remove the circumstances by which most people are compelled to commit petty crime in the first place, which would remove the need for police.

I suggest you discuss deeply held beliefs you have with someone who actually asked for it. I'm not debating the reason the police exist, I'm not debating culture or your disdain for the capitalistic system. I'm the last mutha fucka that would champion that European shit anyway.

But to explain further what I meant using one of your comments.

legally: UBI, robust social programs for housing and luxury, tightly regulated standards on breeding and child rearing.
culturally: stop worshipping at the altar of materialism, change our perception of the value of other humans from 'capital resource' to 'fellow companion in life', and replace the dead-eyed soulless zombie state most humans live in with an existence enriched by personal expression and satisfaction.

We're talking about humans, right? What happens to those within your envisioned society that flat out don't give a fuck about any of that? I presume without police individuals can manage disputes. I'll use my imagination to envision a society with no violent disputes. Let's say a simple accident in said society occurs where one person harms another. The accident could have been avoided so they make it their thing to spread the word to others to not do the thing that caused the accident. Other people pick up on it and pass it along. Now, with there being no actual enforcement required; the presence of these people giving warnings to others still served as a deterrent from making the same mistake.

That's what I mean when saying the mere existence of police (in our reality) is a deterrent. It's not a justification for their existence, it's not an endorsement of a capitalistic society. It's a fundamental and unavoidable fact that every time I stop at a traffic light at 3:00 am in the morning when there is no one else around I do it for two reasons both set forth by the society I live in.

1) It's not safe
2) id be breaking our agreed-upon rules of the road

Add a police force to punish people for breaking these rules and those who do not care for them (the rules) would be more likely not to break those rules without force.

 

[prideandfall]

We're talking about humans, right? What happens to those within your envisioned society that flat out don't give a fuck about any of that?

well sure, there's always going to be an element that either can't or won't agree to the social contract, and yes there should absolutely be a mechanism in place in civilization to deal with that - i'm not stupid or blindly idealistic, i don't think a utopia would exist where all human foibles are eradicated through the power of some perfect governmental system.

*but* if we agree on the foundational premise that A. society is fucked and most (not all) crime exists as a response to that and not as a primary behavior inherent to human beings, and B. fixing the issue of society being fucked would fix most (not all) crime by virtue of it no longer being necessary... then we can conclude that some kind of social order enforcement is inevitable, but a militarized occupation of your country by a brute force organization which justifies its existence by finding a reason, any reason, to turn its might against you is not needed.

That's what I mean when saying the mere existence of police (in our reality) is a deterrent. It's not a justification for their existence, it's not an endorsement of a capitalistic society. It's a fundamental and unavoidable fact that every time I stop at a traffic light at 3:00 am in the morning when there is no one else around I do it for two reasons both set forth by the society I live in.

1) It's not safe
2) id be breaking our agreed-upon rules of the road

Add a police force to punish people for breaking these rules and those who do not care for them would be less likely to break those rules without force.

on that particular example i'd quibble a bit with regards to 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law', but that's mostly a sidetrack comment and i don't want to derail the point.
i guess to really address what you're meaning i'd need to better understand your context for the term 'deterrent' - what is being deterred, and how efficacious that deterrence actually is.

i don't want to come across as harping on your example, i get that it was a hypothetical to express a point and so i'm not hanging my hat on arguing against that one specific thing, but i think you did kind of bring up a broader point: the deterrent you cited was a law abiding citizen adhering to a rule that in that context has no value just for the sake of adhering to the rule on pain of punishment.

the purpose of a stop light is to regulate the flow of traffic. at 3am, the flow of traffic is regulated. stopping and remaining stopped at a red light when you have clear lines of sight in every direction and you're just sitting there not moving for the sake of following a law which exists for a situation which is not currently present (ie, regulating the flow of traffic) because if you don't do so you'll be fined is... complete batshit insanity.
so i agree that the presence of police deter the law-abiding from stepping out in any way, but i disagree that this is about social uniformity... i think it's more about the fact that police create laws specifically to trap people into breaking them so they can fine them to justify their own existence.

if someone is drunk, or joy-riding, or in a high speed escapade, they aren't going to stop at a red light because you're supposed to.
in that sense, police don't deter those disinclined to follow the social contract in the first place from not following the social contract, excepting in the event that the police are standing right there staring at you.
and even then, that's only because we have engineered a society where the police state has a monopoly on the right of force - ie, police are the only ones in our country legally and culturally allowed to use physical violence as a threat to force compliance.
you could remove that monopoly and give the right to physical force back over to self-autonomy and it would accomplish the same thing.

 

[bilby]

Many, perhaps most, of the myriad ‘police’ departments in the US are very clearly not police at all, insofar as they operate with no apparent alignment to the nine principles of policing, as defined in the 1829 “General Instructions” issued to the (then nascent) Metropolitan Police, and summarised by Charles Reith in his Short History of British Police (1948):

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

These principles, known as the ‘Peelian Principles’ after Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the Metropolitan Police who is widely believed to have been central in their formulation, delineate the difference between a police organisation and other law enforcement systems, such as military or paramilitary suppression of criminals or suspected criminals; Vigilantism; or Mob violence.

Of particular relevance is number 7:

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

The fact is that most crime prevention is done by the public at large, without any thought or expectation of reward. Police are supposed to be simply members of the public who are reimbursed for spending their entire working time in the pursuit of crime prevention.

 

[Tigers!]

Many, perhaps most, of the myriad ‘police’ departments in the US are very clearly not police at all, insofar as they operate with no apparent alignment to the nine principles of policing, as defined in the 1829 “General Instructions” issued to the (then nascent) Metropolitan Police, and summarised by Charles Reith in his Short History of British Police (1948):

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

These principles, known as the ‘Peelian Principles’ after Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the Metropolitan Police who is widely believed to have been central in their formulation, delineate the difference between a police organisation and other law enforcement systems, such as military or paramilitary suppression of criminals or suspected criminals; Vigilantism; or Mob violence.

Of particular relevance is number 7:

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

The fact is that most crime prevention is done by the public at large, without any thought or expectation of reward. Police are supposed to be simply members of the public who are reimbursed for spending their entire working time in the pursuit of crime prevention.

Quite extraordinary to think that despite the passage of almost 200 years those words could probably not be improved.

It is often forgotten (see rule 5) that we need officers who are better than the society average, not those that are average or below average.

 

[Gospel]

We're talking about humans, right? What happens to those within your envisioned society that flat out don't give a fuck about any of that?

well sure, there's always going to be an element that either can't or won't agree to the social contract, and yes there should absolutely be a mechanism in place in civilization to deal with that - i'm not stupid or blindly idealistic, i don't think a utopia would exist where all human foibles are eradicated through the power of some perfect governmental system.

*but* if we agree on the foundational premise that A. society is fucked and most (not all) crime exists as a response to that and not as a primary behavior inherent to human beings, and B. fixing the issue of society being fucked would fix most (not all) crime by virtue of it no longer being necessary... then we can conclude that some kind of social order enforcement is inevitable, but a militarized occupation of your country by a brute force organization which justifies its existence by finding a reason, any reason, to turn its might against you is not needed.

That's what I mean when saying the mere existence of police (in our reality) is a deterrent. It's not a justification for their existence, it's not an endorsement of a capitalistic society. It's a fundamental and unavoidable fact that every time I stop at a traffic light at 3:00 am in the morning when there is no one else around I do it for two reasons both set forth by the society I live in.

1) It's not safe
2) id be breaking our agreed-upon rules of the road

Add a police force to punish people for breaking these rules and those who do not care for them would be less likely to break those rules without force.

on that particular example i'd quibble a bit with regards to 'spirit of the law' vs 'letter of the law', but that's mostly a sidetrack comment and i don't want to derail the point.
i guess to really address what you're meaning i'd need to better understand your context for the term 'deterrent' - what is being deterred, and how efficacious that deterrence actually is.

i don't want to come across as harping on your example, i get that it was a hypothetical to express a point and so i'm not hanging my hat on arguing against that one specific thing, but i think you did kind of bring up a broader point: the deterrent you cited was a law abiding citizen adhering to a rule that in that context has no value just for the sake of adhering to the rule on pain of punishment.

the purpose of a stop light is to regulate the flow of traffic. at 3am, the flow of traffic is regulated. stopping and remaining stopped at a red light when you have clear lines of sight in every direction and you're just sitting there not moving for the sake of following a law which exists for a situation which is not currently present (ie, regulating the flow of traffic) because if you don't do so you'll be fined is... complete batshit insanity.
so i agree that the presence of police deter the law-abiding from stepping out in any way, but i disagree that this is about social uniformity... i think it's more about the fact that police create laws specifically to trap people into breaking them so they can fine them to justify their own existence.

if someone is drunk, or joy-riding, or in a high speed escapade, they aren't going to stop at a red light because you're supposed to.
in that sense, police don't deter those disinclined to follow the social contract in the first place from not following the social contract, excepting in the event that the police are standing right there staring at you.
and even then, that's only because we have engineered a society where the police state has a monopoly on the right of force - ie, police are the only ones in our country legally and culturally allowed to use physical violence as a threat to force compliance.
you could remove that monopoly and give the right to physical force back over to self-autonomy and it would accomplish the same thing.

So many things odd with this I'm discouraged to continue. I'll try to sum it up.

1) Laws are the agreed-upon rules set by the society at large. I value society and as a result value its laws. Even at times when those laws may seem useless.
2) The police don't have a monopoly on force. For example, every citizen (at least in America) has a right to defend themselves and others. This includes enforcing the law themselves.
3) Regulating traffic is the function of traffic lights, not the reason for the traffic lights. The reason for traffic lights is to help keep society safe on the roads. If you value that society and the agreement you made with them; you'd follow the traffic signals even at a time when it doesn't seem to make sense.
4) I said nothing about social uniformity so I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with on that topic.
5) The police don't create laws (at least not in America). The people (including corporations these days because the people were dumb enough to allow it) create laws VIA their selected politicians.

You seem to agree that the mere presence of police deters crime, you just have disagreements on a bunch of other shit that I'm not talking about.