Society/Culture Don't talk to the Police - On Philosophical Grounds

[Gethelred]

Okay.

There have been countless police threads on this forum. We have threads on how the criminal justice system in Victoria is soft on criminals; we have threads on police brutality in America and Australia, we have threads on crime waves and whatnot.

We have across multiple threads and topics the acronym ACAB - All Cops Are Bad - and it brought to full focus for me - in conjunction with the video below - that we don't really have a thread to discuss the police philosophically.

From time to time, I'm going to update this thread with a variety of sources, and I encourage others to do the same. The thread title will be altered around the most recent source provided, regardless of whether it's me or others providing that source.

When I do I'll do my best to acknowledge their limitations when I do. For example, the video below is solely concerning an American sociopolitical context and - to an extent - lacks application elsewhere as the US state prison system has its roots in a history of slavery which might not be present elsewhere. There is also the fact that it is definitively a biased argument, biased against police and policing.

None the less, I give you where we will begin:

 

[Spieldory]

Sooo. Turned on the video and its some rap crap that I couldn't understand what they were saying. So I turned it straight off and went and listened to Jason Aldean to cleanse myself.

 

[Episode IV]

I'm only about half way through the video so far, but it's fairly apparent that any issues people have with police and the prison systems in Australia and in the USA are based on two disparate situations.
I'm not really relating to that video much at all, but I believe more than a few here will, being even more saturated with American attitudes and premises than they are with our own.
I think that your use of that video as an opener and the premises it presents is going to bog this thread down fairly quickly.

Many of the issues have much to do with a theme that cropped up fairly early in your video, and that is respect for police. In Australia, that is very definitely decreasing, and with it, occasionally and more likely in times of prolonged stress, the quality of police responses.
I'm old enough to remember when police (in WA) didn't routinely carry guns, wore light blue uniforms of a very non-military nature, and were a lot taller and more imposing.

I'm still occasionally jolted by the difference between now and then. Being pulled over in 2023 is a lot different to being pulled over in 1985, by way of example.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm only about half way through the video so far, but it's fairly apparent that any issues people have with police and the prison systems in Australia and in the USA are based on two disparate situations.
I'm not really relating to that video much at all, but I believe more than a few here will, being even more saturated with American attitudes and premises than they are with our own.
I think that your use of that video as an opener and the premises it presents is going to bog this thread down fairly quickly.

Many of the issues have much to do with a theme that cropped up fairly early in your video, and that is respect for police. In Australia, that is very definitely decreasing, and with it, occasionally and more likely in times of prolonged stress, the quality of police responses.
I'm old enough to remember when police (in WA) didn't routinely carry guns, wore light blue uniforms of a very non-military nature, and were a lot taller and more imposing.

I'm still occasionally jolted by the difference between now and then. Being pulled over in 2023 is a lot different to being pulled over in 1985, by way of example.

The idea with starting the thread off with that particular video is that it's as thought-provoking as it is provocative. It positions prisons in a modern context as tools of capitalism to take care of surplus population and a means of economic repression of lower classes and racial minorities in quite specific ways.

I'm working on finding my next source, which will hopefully be something approaching things from the other angle.

 

[ShanDog]

I find it amusing how political movements can be grounded in deep thought, complex ideas and seek to address systemic problems that appear almost too large to ever be changed, but then get boiled down to a bumper-sticker slogan which immediately turns the majority of people - even those who are most affected by the problem - totally and forever against the movement. It's like how Ted Kaczynski had some really interesting and thoughtful critiques of modern society, and decided the solution to that was to send mail bombs. Like, WTF? How did you manage that logical leap?

 

[Engimal v3]

**** cops. The only good pig...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It's like how Ted Kaczynski had some really interesting and thoughtful critiques of modern society, and decided the solution to that was to send mail bombs. Like, WTF? How did you manage that logical leap?

Ted got utterly mind-f*cked through secret US government experimentation;

U.S. Government Mind Control Experiments

Hypnosis, LSD, and the Unabomber.

www.psychologytoday.com

April 26, 2020

..Another ethically problematic study was conducted by Henry A. Murray. Murray was a professor at Harvard University and had worked for the Office of Strategic Services (the predecessor to the CIA) during World War II. He wrote “Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler,” which was the psychological analysis of Hitler that was used by the military. During this time, he also helped develop tests to screen soldiers, conducted tests on brainwashing, and determined how well soldiers could withstand interrogations. The interrogation studies included intense mock interrogations on soldiers as part of assessing the limits of their psychological breaking points (Chase, 2000).

From 1959-1962, Murray conducted such interrogation studies on Harvard undergraduates (Chase, 2000). Theodore Kaczynski, who later became known as The Unabomber, was one of the 22 participants in Murray’s study, subjected to several years of interrogations designed to psychologically break the young man...

 

[Gethelred]

I find it amusing how political movements can be grounded in deep thought, complex ideas and seek to address systemic problems that appear almost too large to ever be changed, but then get boiled down to a bumper-sticker slogan which immediately turns the majority of people - even those who are most affected by the problem - totally and forever against the movement. It's like how Ted Kaczynski had some really interesting and thoughtful critiques of modern society, and decided the solution to that was to send mail bombs. Like, WTF? How did you manage that logical leap?

The thread's named for the video, which was named for the song by NWA.

The idea for this thread - if you read the OP - is that I or others can share resources that justify, criticize or discuss police and policing (including prisons and society) from purely a philosophical basis.

If you'd like to contribute a source, I can rename the thread (which was the idea from the get go).

 

[ShanDog]

The thread's named for the video, which was named for the song by NWA.

The idea for this thread - if you read the OP - is that I or others can share resources that justify, criticize or discuss police and policing (including prisons and society) from purely a philosophical basis.

If you'd like to contribute a source, I can rename the thread (which was the idea from the get go).

I guess my comment was more about how the underlying philosophy is communicated or turned into action, particularly in the context of the resource you posted.

 

[barreness]

I find it amusing how political movements can be grounded in deep thought, complex ideas and seek to address systemic problems that appear almost too large to ever be changed, but then get boiled down to a bumper-sticker slogan which immediately turns the majority of people - even those who are most affected by the problem - totally and forever against the movement. It's like how Ted Kaczynski had some really interesting and thoughtful critiques of modern society, and decided the solution to that was to send mail bombs. Like, WTF? How did you manage that logical leap?

Did his dissertation on boundary functions, he just arrived at the logical conclusions a lot quicker than others and took some rather brash actions.

Derail though,

Do like J.D vids, its interesting going back and looking at the origins of policing.
Back to australia's roots as a prison colony is food for thought, maybe it wasn't the convicts that were the problem

 

[Gethelred]

Our next resource...

Our first entry into this topic was F.D Signifier's F&%$ the Police, in which FD discussed at length - through interviews, analyses, and historical review - that policing has always been a tool of state repression, and that repression has changed over time. Where once it was a tool of direct repression, now policing and jails are tools by which capitalism regulates the job market; if you have a job that cannot or only barely pays for you family's rent, transportation, your children's schooling and food on one hand and crime on the other which can absolutely pay for all of those things, you're probably going to make the criminal choice. Through this lens, crime is a consequence of excess population, with all desirable positions filled and the underclass needing to be controlled to prevent anything changing.

One wonders if there's any connection between black men being the main peoples imprisoned and that idea.

The next thread starter is "Don't talk to the Police", which is quite an old video. Again, it is limited to an American jurisdiction; don't try this over here, and thus some to all of the conclusions cannot be drawn equally over Australia. But it is a worthwhile discussion point for quite a few reasons: the first speaker was a law professor who has planned out a lecture on the subject and is fairly knowledgeable (and entertaining) for it, but the second speaker was a serving police at the time of recording whose task it was to extract confessions. To have him come to the precise same conclusion for entirely... darker reasons is an interesting thing to behold.

Without any further ado...

 

[evolved2]

For those who oppose police and prisons philosophically, what's your alternative?

 

[Gethelred]

For those who oppose police and prisons philosophically, what's your alternative?

Not what this thread is for.

We have ****ing countless threads on the SRP to discuss policing, alternatives and misbehaviour. What this thread is for is to provide a philosophical and contextual position for poster's stance on policing; resources and underpinnings.

What this is for - why it is useful - is because instead of moving forward without a demonstration or justification - whether we're talking an ACAB position or pro-policing position - this thread serves to provide demonstration, allowing those threads to base their positions on something more concrete.

Should you want to provide a resource for consideration, feel free to post it in here and I'll change the thread title.

 

[tandino]

Policing in some form has probably been around since we crawled up the beach out of the oceans. It seems to me that it's one of many tools that society has come up with to formulate and regulate themselves.

That's where the philosophical discussion starts with me. If we accept that we don't want to be individuals roaming the countryside, policing comes along pretty early on as a way to give society it's structure. To say it's a tool of a capitalist state as if it's some big reveal is a little meaningless. Of course it is. Why shouldn't it be? Why shouldn't it reflect the priorities of society as determined by their democratic representatives? If not that, then what?

It's a pretty simplistic view. Advocate for change, vote for change, disobey, absolutely. But take your problems up with society.

 

[Gethelred]

Policing in some form has probably been around since we crawled up the beach out of the oceans. It seems to me that it's one of many tools that society has come up with to formulate and regulate themselves.

That's where the philosophical discussion starts with me. If we accept that we don't want to be individuals roaming the countryside, policing comes along pretty early on as a way to give society it's structure. To say it's a tool of a capitalist state as if it's some big reveal is a little meaningless. Of course it is. Why shouldn't it be? Why shouldn't it reflect the priorities of society as determined by their democratic representatives? If not that, then what?

It's a pretty simplistic view. Advocate for change, vote for change, disobey, absolutely. But take your problems up with society.

The 'reveal' as you put it - again, watch the full first resource in here for a complete encapsulation, as I'm summarising things - isn't that prisons and jail are a tool of a capitalist state, it's in how that occurs. Within a precapitalist society, crime and justice served the social need for a scapegoat, hence the retributive nature of punishment. Capitalism though is a good deal more subtle; as society apportions value to the labour of individuals, it also determines what is not valuable labour. This leads to there being a natural point in which your labour is sufficiently undervalued that you cannot feed yourself, cannot clothe yourself, within the bounds of the law. Jails and criminal justice becomes then an outcome of there being an excess workforce; if you cannot get a job or if the job you can get fails to adequately support your life, why would you not turn to crime if it can?

And if your view of things is "why shouldn't it be?", I have another question for you: does the state choosing to imprison people instead of providing people enough to live upon trouble you?

 

[evolved2]

The 'reveal' as you put it - again, watch the full first resource in here for a complete encapsulation, as I'm summarising things - isn't that prisons and jail are a tool of a capitalist state, it's in how that occurs. Within a precapitalist society, crime and justice served the social need for a scapegoat, hence the retributive nature of punishment. Capitalism though is a good deal more subtle; as society apportions value to the labour of individuals, it also determines what is not valuable labour. This leads to there being a natural point in which your labour is sufficiently undervalued that you cannot feed yourself, cannot clothe yourself, within the bounds of the law. Jails and criminal justice becomes then an outcome of there being an excess workforce; if you cannot get a job or if the job you can get fails to adequately support your life, why would you not turn to crime if it can?

And if your view of things is "why shouldn't it be?", I have another question for you: does the state choosing to imprison people instead of providing people enough to live upon trouble you?

My question to you is whether government assistance is sufficient that someone shouldn't need to resort to crime for food and shelter.

On paper, jobseeker and rent assistance look sufficient for the basics including healthy eating, shelter and utilities. Admittedly, I haven't used jobseeker or rent assistance so I could be completely off base.

 

[Gethelred]

My question to you is whether government assistance is sufficient that someone shouldn't need to resort to crime for food and shelter.

On paper, jobseeker and rent assistance look sufficient for the basics including healthy eating, shelter and utilities. Admittedly, I haven't used jobseeker or rent assistance so I could be completely off base.

I can speak for my own experience when on the Newstart - prior to Jobseeker - in that it wasn't really enough. There were weeks in which I had to choose between food and petrol, when I had to prioritise my electricity bill over eating anything other than baked beans. I was paying $754 a month for rent, which was pretty pretty good for when I was doing it - 2015-2018 - but the Newstart and Rent Assist combined to provide roughly $1600-1700 a month. In winter - it was down in Geelong - energy could be prohibitively expensive, and petrol/car insurance/internet was a killer.

I also was a single male. I don't have context for family payments - if they make it easier or not - but it's not really a sustainable situation for any amount of time.

There is also a difference between my situation and other people's in that I moved from the SE of Melbourne to Geelong for uni and had no social network down there; as such, my opportunities for getting into something criminal would've had to be shoplifting or robbery, and I was raised to never even consider them a possibility. Put someone in a different context - someone in a community where low level criminality is more acceptable; make them a little younger (17-18 rather than mid twenties) and with a friend group who have no stigma against it - and you'd see more crime.

You have massive business opportunities created by the war on drugs. A low level weed dealer can make more than enough to pay for their crop, their children and their lives without coming onto police radars unless they spend beyond their means. The problem there is the threat of violence - both from the state and from those who know your enterprise is illegal and you're unlikely to go to the cops - so you need to branch out; you need to hire some muscle of your own, protect your business.

This is behaviour created by capitalism determining value - no value in legal behaviour and thus poverty; value in illegal behaviour and thus comfort and success - and society allowing the market to determine who goes to jail.

It should also be recognised that it's only ever the low level people who go to jail in drugs trading, anyway. You're never going to get the people who actually fuel the damn things.