3 ms·

Policing by consent but you can’t withdraw your consent? I know a couple perpetually angry people on Twitter who’d be have a thing or two to say about this defi

Policing by consent but you can’t withdraw your consent? I know a couple perpetually angry people on Twitter who’d be have a thing or two to say about this definition of the term “consent”. The article even quotes an inofficial 10th principle, “No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.” It’s a good set of principles but I fail to see what’s consensual about it.

mola 3y ago
As long as no one wants to withdraw, then there's no problem. And policing by concent puts the burden on achieving that state on the police.
Doxin 3y ago
It's consent on average. Of course no sane criminal is going to consent to being arrested, that's not quite the point this article is trying to make.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  Ofc, but given that there’s no way whatsoever to withdraw consent, it’s meaningless. It’s policing by democracy. That’s fine, and I know no better way, but it’s not consent. It’s just majority rule. I think “Policing by majority approval” would be a better term. That’s also Peel’s main point I think: to not police in name of some sole ruler or small elite but in name of, and in service of, everybody. I wonder whether in the 19th century “consent” meant something different.
  - Doxin 3y ago
    Eh fair enough, but that's debating definitions which is not usually all that interesting. Seems like word choice aside we agree.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    When you have millions of people, you need to form abstractions over large groups. The Majority of the Public is a million times better than The Whim of the King.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    But it needs to be more than just "majority". I'm not sure Peelian policing can work if 40% of the society doesn't approve of them. 1%? Sure, that will probably work. 10%? Not sure. Somewhere well before 50%, it breaks down.
Pinegulf 3y ago
Society is package deal. In free world one can seek citizenship where rules appeal to them. If none do, then that's a problem. But if every option is bad, then maybe the fault lies within the one common factor, ie. you?
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Or maybe the problem lies with violent power-hungry cabals that dominate the Earth by force? Governments aren't created democratically, they are created by the people with the biggest weapons and least hesitation to use them.
drewcoo 3y ago
Indeed. No means no.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
harimau777 3y ago
I took its discussion of consent to more mean something like "a democratic[1] police force can only be effective if the society it is operating in wants it to be successful". For example, there are currently significant segments of America where the social norm is to never involve or assist police except for the most extreme crimes[2]; this of course significantly impairs the police's ability to effectively respond to more minor crimes. [1] I went back and forth on what to call this. Basically by "democratic police force" I mean one that doesn't adopt strategies that we tend to associate with a "police state" such as keeping the peace by crushing dissent, draconian punishments for any challenge to authority, pervasive surveillance, etc. [2] I recently heard someone frame it as "you should only call the police when violence would help the situation".

mola 3y ago

As long as no one wants to withdraw, then there's no problem. And policing by concent puts the burden on achieving that state on the police.

Doxin 3y ago

It's consent on average. Of course no sane criminal is going to consent to being arrested, that's not quite the point this article is trying to make.

skrebbel 3y ago
Ofc, but given that there’s no way whatsoever to withdraw consent, it’s meaningless. It’s policing by democracy. That’s fine, and I know no better way, but it’s not consent. It’s just majority rule. I think “Policing by majority approval” would be a better term. That’s also Peel’s main point I think: to not police in name of some sole ruler or small elite but in name of, and in service of, everybody. I wonder whether in the 19th century “consent” meant something different.
- Doxin 3y ago
  Eh fair enough, but that's debating definitions which is not usually all that interesting. Seems like word choice aside we agree.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  When you have millions of people, you need to form abstractions over large groups. The Majority of the Public is a million times better than The Whim of the King.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  But it needs to be more than just "majority". I'm not sure Peelian policing can work if 40% of the society doesn't approve of them. 1%? Sure, that will probably work. 10%? Not sure. Somewhere well before 50%, it breaks down.

Pinegulf 3y ago

Society is package deal. In free world one can seek citizenship where rules appeal to them. If none do, then that's a problem. But if every option is bad, then maybe the fault lies within the one common factor, ie. you?

hgsgm 3y ago
Or maybe the problem lies with violent power-hungry cabals that dominate the Earth by force? Governments aren't created democratically, they are created by the people with the biggest weapons and least hesitation to use them.

drewcoo 3y ago

Indeed. No means no.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

harimau777 3y ago

I took its discussion of consent to more mean something like "a democratic[1] police force can only be effective if the society it is operating in wants it to be successful". For example, there are currently significant segments of America where the social norm is to never involve or assist police except for the most extreme crimes[2]; this of course significantly impairs the police's ability to effectively respond to more minor crimes. [1] I went back and forth on what to call this. Basically by "democratic police force" I mean one that doesn't adopt strategies that we tend to associate with a "police state" such as keeping the peace by crushing dissent, draconian punishments for any challenge to authority, pervasive surveillance, etc. [2] I recently heard someone frame it as "you should only call the police when violence would help the situation".