6 ms·

The failure to implement Peelian principles in the USA is not an oversight, but a deliberate decision that stems from the USA’s racial tension. When this debate

The failure to implement Peelian principles in the USA is not an oversight, but a deliberate decision that stems from the USA’s racial tension. When this debate has arisen, white law-enforcement elites have claimed that Peelian policing is inapplicable to the American context, because if black communities were policed by representatives of that community (i.e. other blacks), then the police would likely overlook much of the crime going on. The black police officers would sympathize too much with the citizens they policed, they would see both themselves and the local citizens as opposed to an outside white world, and they would be unwilling to put fellow blacks before white judges and prosecutors. (Not to mention that there has been enormous suspicion among the US national-security apparatus about any kind of self-organizing among black communities.) Therefore, critics of Peelian policing claim, the only effective solution to ensure prosecutions for crimes would be to have these communities policed largely by outsiders. So, if you wanted to fully implement a more just form of policing in the United States, you would have to somehow overcome this deeply entrenched racist thinking. Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". So, the result is a vicious circle.

nerdponx 6y ago
This is fascinating, I've never heard of this debate before. Do you have any sources for further reading on it?
pstuart 6y ago
Much of the crime going on is drug related, which is a manufactured crime that was designed to make POC criminals. End the war on drugs and a large chunk of crime magically disappears. Obviously this doesn't address poverty from other systematic discrimination but it does remove a key driver for criminal activity.
- taborj 6y ago
  I'm not sure how much I agree with this. On the one hand, yes, you'll have fewer arrests on drug charges, but you'll still have (or maybe have more of) crimes related to drug use, such as theft and assault. Addicts looking for cash for a fix drop much of their moral compass.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence to back up these statements?
  - addicted44 6y ago
    Do you have any actual evidence that addicts engage in a disproportionate number of thefts and assaults? And whether the number of thefts and assaults they engage in is all that significant. Finally, I'm pretty sure moral compass has little to do with whether addicts engage in theft and assault.
  - ses1984 6y ago
    How much of current drug arrests are related to addicts looking for a fix? Spoiler alert, it's a tiny fraction. Theft and assault should still be crimes. Usage should not be criminalized. Trafficking should be replaced with regulated commerce.
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
      The prominent crimes here from addicts looking for a fix are panhandling, vagrancy and trespassing.
      - ses1984 6y ago
        I don't think anyone is arguing that ending the war on drugs is going to directly reduce these crimes. It may have an impact on these crimes from second order effects, but to really tackle those crimes you would need to go one step further than ending the war on drugs and replacing it with more progressive policies.
  - marssaxman 6y ago
    There's an easy solution: prescribe drugs to addicts. Heroin is cheap; much cheaper than crime. Switzerland and Portugal have adopted this policy.
    - pstuart 6y ago
- dariusj18 6y ago
  What kind of drug crime are you referring to? If it entails dealing of drugs than I don't think ending the war on drugs will have a net effect. (Not that I don't think we shouldn't) Drugs are a lucrative business when made illegal, this can be seen a quick way to combat ones economic situation (created by major/historic societal imbalances). Legalize drugs and drugs would certainly not be the lucrative business, but something else criminal would take its place. IMO dealing with the economic imbalance is the priority, decriminalizing drugs only helps eliminate a portion of the chicken/egg variables. As an aside, even with decriminalized drug usage/possession there would still be laws against illegal manufacturing, distribution and tax avoidance.
  - carapace 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca... > A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in cocaine trafficking during the 1980s. ... The subject remains controversial. - - - - > something else criminal would take its place. A. Like what? B. Drugs are only criminal because we make laws. Theft, killing, etc.. are wrong but doing drugs is just stupid.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    > something else criminal would take its place Like what? Burglary? Insider trading? I'm not backhanding you here; I genuinely can't come up with any reasonably criminal activity that would blossom into that vacuum.
    - quicklyfrozen 6y ago
      Protection, extortion, gambling, human trafficking, other contraband goods, and sure, burglary and robbery. Lots of things that could be more violent to the population at large then drug dealing (after all, you don't really want to kill your customers).
      - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
throwaway894345 6y ago
> Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". This makes it sound as though the relative prevalence of (especially violent) crime in American minority communities as compared to white communities exists only in the white imagination. Like it's some really simple problem but for those dastardly racist whites. I'm sure that's not what you mean (it's certainly an uncharitable interpretation), so I want to disambiguate. Of course it's much more complicated than that--there's a lot of variety in violent crime levels across different racial and ethnic communities. There are a lot of (both racist and non-racist) theories for explaining this (genes, variations in socioeconomic status, etc), but it's not just a figment of the white imagination. One such popular and generally credible theory (or rather, set of theories) suggest that the American policing model indirectly causes violent crime in minority communities. This is probably what you're suggesting (or if your post is a motte and bailey argument, then this theory is the motte). It's a genuinely interesting line of inquiry, so we should talk about it plainly and dispense with the ambiguous language suggestive of some racist plot (and for those who do favor "racist plot" theories, then I would rather we talk about those unambiguously as well).
- carapace 6y ago
  > some racist plot But that's exactly what has been going on, from slavery to the KKK to the "redlining" of cities... Hell man, ask the Indians! This whole nation is "some racist plot".
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    There certainly have been various racist plots and of course they have left an awful legacy, but we're trying to explain the what perpetuates the ongoing cycle of violence. Thus it's important to be clear about whether you're espousing a theory of some ongoing racist plot or an emergent property of (for example) our policing strategy. In general, US race debates would be a lot more productive if we were clearer about whether we are talking about a historical injustice or an ongoing injustice--even otherwise good communicators fail to articulate clearly here, and it gives the vibe that they're afraid that their position, articulated clearly, can't stand on its own. I don't think they have as much to fear as they seem to do, and as long as these debates are floundering in ambiguity these real social problems will persist.
ellofromoversea 6y ago
One does not have to overcome racism The public in the country need to organize to change the law and enforce them America isn’t losing standing in the world because of Trump It’s losing standing in the world because it does nothing to sustain a protest against him The US military is the largest polluter in the world It’s effecting all of us Putin is getting the upper hand by highlighting to the world how vain and unorganized Americans are, despite all the pretense and pomp Here they go bloviating at their screens like usual for America Meanwhile, truly exceptional masses in Hong Kong protest a vile tyrant Americans have found it difficult to protest a sentient Cheeto in terms of relative intelligence The nation of exceptional people full of grit look like muppets. Deeply controlled by their luxury lifestyle and indoctrination against self agency. “Be better by buying X.” With money and emotional acquiescence of agency to the habit. Now make buying into our managed system your goal for life Who wants to determine life for themselves? May as well have a company get us to design, implement, build, and then charge us for our gadgets so they can keep control of the value store that is finance The gadgets, you see, are a means to an end. To keep you screaming at the gadget not the old git Americans seem to believe is going to spank them for not going to work at scale Traditional values is alive and well in America. The language of religion has faded. But obedience to a hierarchy demanding fealty to imagery emotional objects at scale is very much alive Look at people that are concerned about going back to work but they may have no choice It’s cowardice to think that’s the only option. Stay home, don’t login except for essential biz Oh no, not only would we have to give up salons, but our iPhones and cloud apps for a bit? Too much!

nerdponx 6y ago

This is fascinating, I've never heard of this debate before. Do you have any sources for further reading on it?

pstuart 6y ago

Much of the crime going on is drug related, which is a manufactured crime that was designed to make POC criminals. End the war on drugs and a large chunk of crime magically disappears. Obviously this doesn't address poverty from other systematic discrimination but it does remove a key driver for criminal activity.

taborj 6y ago
I'm not sure how much I agree with this. On the one hand, yes, you'll have fewer arrests on drug charges, but you'll still have (or maybe have more of) crimes related to drug use, such as theft and assault. Addicts looking for cash for a fix drop much of their moral compass.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence to back up these statements?
- addicted44 6y ago
  Do you have any actual evidence that addicts engage in a disproportionate number of thefts and assaults? And whether the number of thefts and assaults they engage in is all that significant. Finally, I'm pretty sure moral compass has little to do with whether addicts engage in theft and assault.
- ses1984 6y ago
  How much of current drug arrests are related to addicts looking for a fix? Spoiler alert, it's a tiny fraction. Theft and assault should still be crimes. Usage should not be criminalized. Trafficking should be replaced with regulated commerce.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    The prominent crimes here from addicts looking for a fix are panhandling, vagrancy and trespassing.
    - ses1984 6y ago
      I don't think anyone is arguing that ending the war on drugs is going to directly reduce these crimes. It may have an impact on these crimes from second order effects, but to really tackle those crimes you would need to go one step further than ending the war on drugs and replacing it with more progressive policies.
- marssaxman 6y ago
  There's an easy solution: prescribe drugs to addicts. Heroin is cheap; much cheaper than crime. Switzerland and Portugal have adopted this policy.
  - pstuart 6y ago
dariusj18 6y ago
What kind of drug crime are you referring to? If it entails dealing of drugs than I don't think ending the war on drugs will have a net effect. (Not that I don't think we shouldn't) Drugs are a lucrative business when made illegal, this can be seen a quick way to combat ones economic situation (created by major/historic societal imbalances). Legalize drugs and drugs would certainly not be the lucrative business, but something else criminal would take its place. IMO dealing with the economic imbalance is the priority, decriminalizing drugs only helps eliminate a portion of the chicken/egg variables. As an aside, even with decriminalized drug usage/possession there would still be laws against illegal manufacturing, distribution and tax avoidance.
- carapace 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca... > A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in cocaine trafficking during the 1980s. ... The subject remains controversial. - - - - > something else criminal would take its place. A. Like what? B. Drugs are only criminal because we make laws. Theft, killing, etc.. are wrong but doing drugs is just stupid.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > something else criminal would take its place Like what? Burglary? Insider trading? I'm not backhanding you here; I genuinely can't come up with any reasonably criminal activity that would blossom into that vacuum.
  - quicklyfrozen 6y ago
    Protection, extortion, gambling, human trafficking, other contraband goods, and sure, burglary and robbery. Lots of things that could be more violent to the population at large then drug dealing (after all, you don't really want to kill your customers).
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

> Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". This makes it sound as though the relative prevalence of (especially violent) crime in American minority communities as compared to white communities exists only in the white imagination. Like it's some really simple problem but for those dastardly racist whites. I'm sure that's not what you mean (it's certainly an uncharitable interpretation), so I want to disambiguate. Of course it's much more complicated than that--there's a lot of variety in violent crime levels across different racial and ethnic communities. There are a lot of (both racist and non-racist) theories for explaining this (genes, variations in socioeconomic status, etc), but it's not just a figment of the white imagination. One such popular and generally credible theory (or rather, set of theories) suggest that the American policing model indirectly causes violent crime in minority communities. This is probably what you're suggesting (or if your post is a motte and bailey argument, then this theory is the motte). It's a genuinely interesting line of inquiry, so we should talk about it plainly and dispense with the ambiguous language suggestive of some racist plot (and for those who do favor "racist plot" theories, then I would rather we talk about those unambiguously as well).

carapace 6y ago
> some racist plot But that's exactly what has been going on, from slavery to the KKK to the "redlining" of cities... Hell man, ask the Indians! This whole nation is "some racist plot".
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  There certainly have been various racist plots and of course they have left an awful legacy, but we're trying to explain the what perpetuates the ongoing cycle of violence. Thus it's important to be clear about whether you're espousing a theory of some ongoing racist plot or an emergent property of (for example) our policing strategy. In general, US race debates would be a lot more productive if we were clearer about whether we are talking about a historical injustice or an ongoing injustice--even otherwise good communicators fail to articulate clearly here, and it gives the vibe that they're afraid that their position, articulated clearly, can't stand on its own. I don't think they have as much to fear as they seem to do, and as long as these debates are floundering in ambiguity these real social problems will persist.

ellofromoversea 6y ago

One does not have to overcome racism The public in the country need to organize to change the law and enforce them America isn’t losing standing in the world because of Trump It’s losing standing in the world because it does nothing to sustain a protest against him The US military is the largest polluter in the world It’s effecting all of us Putin is getting the upper hand by highlighting to the world how vain and unorganized Americans are, despite all the pretense and pomp Here they go bloviating at their screens like usual for America Meanwhile, truly exceptional masses in Hong Kong protest a vile tyrant Americans have found it difficult to protest a sentient Cheeto in terms of relative intelligence The nation of exceptional people full of grit look like muppets. Deeply controlled by their luxury lifestyle and indoctrination against self agency. “Be better by buying X.” With money and emotional acquiescence of agency to the habit. Now make buying into our managed system your goal for life Who wants to determine life for themselves? May as well have a company get us to design, implement, build, and then charge us for our gadgets so they can keep control of the value store that is finance The gadgets, you see, are a means to an end. To keep you screaming at the gadget not the old git Americans seem to believe is going to spank them for not going to work at scale Traditional values is alive and well in America. The language of religion has faded. But obedience to a hierarchy demanding fealty to imagery emotional objects at scale is very much alive Look at people that are concerned about going back to work but they may have no choice It’s cowardice to think that’s the only option. Stay home, don’t login except for essential biz Oh no, not only would we have to give up salons, but our iPhones and cloud apps for a bit? Too much!