Law in socialist society

I wanted to start this thread pertaining to the replacement of the bourgeois controlled police force post revolution. I have always supported an armed proletarian militia to regulate the law made up of the masses to prevent any sort of oppression by a police force privileged with control and determination of how the law should be carried out. I would appreciate the opinions of any other comrade on how this should be handled as I view it as a very important aspect to be dealt with for the well being of future socialist nations.

While I support an armed populace and the establishment of revolutionary militias, law enforcement has become a skilled profession in recent decades. Being proficient in investigations, forensics, dealing with deranged criminals, etc. requires a lot of time, training, and dedication. Consequently, it seems infeasible to me that decent law enforcement can be provided on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic toward your concerns of police oppression. In my opinion, the best method to reduce instances of police brutality and so forth is to have civilian oversight in law enforcement via elected delegates to the management councils of police departments.

Celtiberian wrote:While I support an armed populace and the establishment of revolutionary militias, law enforcement has become a skilled profession in recent decades. Being proficient in investigations, forensics, dealing with deranged criminals, etc. requires a lot of time, training, and dedication. Consequently, it seems infeasible to me that decent law enforcement can be provided on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic toward your concerns of police oppression. In my opinion, the best method to reduce instances of police brutality and so forth is to have civilian oversight in law enforcement via elected delegates to the management councils of police departments.

I am under the impression that it is the detectives and scientific units that are the main investigators with most of the knowledge. If this is indeed the case then the run-of-the-mill officer would not be an absolute necessity as a militia or community guard could merely call the aforementioned experts upon discovery of a crime scene that warrants it. This way, the people will be able to dismantle the police as an enforcement body and transform it into a solely investigative one. This, I assume, covers both the mistrust of the police as well as the skill requirements both being addressed. What do you think?

Red Aegis wrote:I am under the impression that it is the detectives and scientific units that are the main investigators with most of the knowledge. If this is indeed the case then the run-of-the-mill officer would not be an absolute necessity as a militia or community guard could merely call the aforementioned experts upon discovery of a crime scene that warrants it. This way, the people will be able to dismantle the police as an enforcement body and transform it into a solely investigative one. This, I assume, covers both the mistrust of the police as well as the skill requirements both being addressed. What do you think?

I just don't believe that people are going to be willing to invest the time and endure the conditions required for even basic law enforcement procedures unless they're remunerated for doing so, in which case there wouldn't be much distinguishing it from the manner by which law enforcement is currently practiced. I see no urgent need to dismantle police institutions, but, again, I do acknowledge the need for significantly more community oversight and control over law enforcement.

I say that we get rid of the privilege, get rid of the reactionaries, and democratize the police force under the supervision of the community. I don't see how training someone to be a forensic scientist in socialism is any different from training an engineer. Thoughts?

Just after the revolution, I think worker's militias need to be kept armed and they will deal with with all serious crime and counter-revolutionary activity. The militia would most likely and (hopefully) be ranked with members of the (former) proletariat as well as defectors from the actual military.

As for establishing law and courts - although I support a confederation of allied States - there needs to be some form of national institution or organization with the ability to act in all future States and/or have branches in each in order to ensure that criminals can't get away with crimes simply by traveling out of their State/jurisdiction. It would be like the FBI, though called something different and organized differently and on a much less oppressive level.

As for all other crime that isn't national/international, they should be taken care of by local militias/volunteer police forces and all criminals should be forced to face their victims and their victims should have a say in the punishment allocated to the proven convict. This would be taken care of in town and local courts. For example, if a girl is raped, it should up to her family to help decide punishment. There needs to be some sort of check though to make sure it is reasonable. I would fully support the family sentencing the rapist to death (yea I know theres a thread on capital punishment), but, I think it would be unreasonable if the girl somehow came to the conclusion that he needed to be tortured to death.

Red Aegis wrote:I say that we get rid of the privilege, get rid of the reactionaries, and democratize the police force under the supervision of the community. I don't see how training someone to be a forensic scientist in socialism is any different from training an engineer. Thoughts?

I couldn't agree more.

There are efforts under way to establish community control of police forces after all. How can we help? Once I know more, I'll make another diy/info thread.

Neither before nor after a revolution should vigilante groups ever be in charge of law enforcement. I reject the notion that an armed man in uniform paid by the government is more prone to misconduct than an armed man patrolling the neighborhood in his pyjamas. Law enforcement is a serious task that cannot and ought not be carried out by voluntary forces but by thoroughly trained officials that bring the right set of mind. In the U.S. these kind of people seem to be a rare breed.

I admit that standing helpless in the face of police brutality is enraging. But the solution cannot be: weapons to the people.

Community control of policing would not be equivalent to a marauding mob. It would ensure that the police were accountable to the community as opposed to that of people hundreds of miles away or by a bureaucracy that protects them from justice so that they can be used for personal interests. Why would a random armed mob be so different from a bureaucratically run armed mob that is protected from almost all prosecution?

EDIT: Also, why shouldn't the people be armed?

Red Aegis wrote:Community control of policing would not be equivalent to a marauding mob.

How do you fancy that to be practical? On what scale do you want the police's work to be controlled by the public? Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of public servants that work transparently. I don't like the idea of a police officer that is not obliged to show some ID or that is not bound by law and a proper code of conduct. But neither do I want police's course of action to be controlled on a scale that makes law enforcement entirely pointless. And I also do not want private companies or voluntary forces to take over the job. Law enforcement ought to be strictly public. Of course I'm aware that we are not on the same page here. You are an American citizen, I'm a German citizen. That's a huge difference when it comes to government.

It would ensure that the police were accountable to the community as opposed to that of people hundreds of miles away or by a bureaucracy that protects them from justice so that they can be used for personal interests. Why would a random armed mob be so different from a bureaucratically run armed mob that is protected from almost all prosecution?

You know why police officials are accountable to the community in the first place? It's because they are public servants and not some volunteers that ganged up on you or some Blackwater security mob. You got a problem with those guys? Have a nice day! If however you are dissatisfied with the work a public servant you can turn to state agencies and file a complaint. Of course I'm exaggerating but I just wanna make a point here. I remember watching CNN seeing people protesting against Obama's health care reform bill. They carried signs saying "Government - hands off my medicare". What the fuck? Medicare is the GOVERNMENT, it's PUBLIC health care.

EDIT: Also, why shouldn't the people be armed?

There are many good reasons. One would be: You don't want every lunatic or person with the wrong set of mind to be entitled to carry a weapon. Never wondered why so many people in the U.S. die of gunshot wounds? With weapons almost freely circulating there's always a great risk of getting shot for no reason. If I wanted to be cynical I'd state: The poor and desperate don't get health care, shelter or food. Let them at least have weapons so they can take what they need. From this perspective it's an almost fair deal. Almost.

Lumpenproletariat wrote:How do you fancy that to be practical? On what scale do you want the police's work to be controlled by the public? Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of public servants that work transparently. I don't like the idea of a police officer that is not obliged to show some ID or that is not bound by law and a proper code of conduct. But neither do I want police's course of action to be controlled on a scale that makes law enforcement entirely pointless. And I also do not want private companies or voluntary forces to take over the job. Law enforcement ought to be strictly public. Of course I'm aware that we are not on the same page here. You are an American citizen, I'm a German citizen. That's a huge difference when it comes to government.

Have the police administration appointed by council and held accountable by that council. The council would be composed of delegates from the political system. This way if the police do something wrong or have the wrong policies the council that controls the police would be directly held accountable if proper action is not done. This is different from the current system since police officials are appointed in most cases and they are held accountable through a mayor in most cases. The government now is beholden to the interests of the bourgeoisie so the government is less likely to do anything to them and for other reasons has more incentive to keep people from exercising their freedoms through policy decisions and not doing much to limit negative aspects from the culture of police departments.

You know why police officials are accountable to the community in the first place? It's because they are public servants and not some volunteers that ganged up on you or some Blackwater security mob. You got a problem with those guys? Have a nice day! If however you are dissatisfied with the work a public servant you can turn to state agencies and file a complaint. Of course I'm exaggerating but I just wanna make a point here. I remember watching CNN seeing people protesting against Obama's health care reform bill. They carried signs saying "Government - hands off my medicare". What the fuck? Medicare is the GOVERNMENT, it's PUBLIC health care.

Do you think that I support privatization?

So you think that compliant thing works? Okay then.

(EDIT: Every police station is required by law to have complaint forms readily available and to give them without hesitation or question.)

There are many good reasons. One would be: You don't want every lunatic or person with the wrong set of mind to be entitled to carry a weapon. Never wondered why so many people in the U.S. die of gunshot wounds? With weapons almost freely circulating there's always a great risk of getting shot for no reason. If I wanted to be cynical I'd state: The poor and desperate don't get health care, shelter or food. Let them at least have weapons so they can take what they need. From this perspective it's an almost fair deal. Almost.

Could you write a detailed argument in this thread?

Well, i am somewhat on the fence on this one, but i agree with lumpen about the guns issue, and how vanguard mobs controlling the police is not the way. I believe it's a fundamental european vs US perspective here.

With that said, i believe that in a post revolution scenario, there won't be a centralized police, rather every district should have it's own force, that serves that particular district, free from central orders. The central government has access to the army. Then there is a more even distribution of power among the land.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Well, i am somewhat on the fence on this one, but i agree with lumpen about the guns issue, and how vanguard mobs controlling the police is not the way. I believe it's a fundamental european vs US perspective here.

Who said anything about vanguard mobs? That is completely different from having a community watch or something like they have in Switzerland. The members of this new police force would have to be approved by a council of delegates under the criteria: mental status, past behavior, ability, and knowledge necessary for the work. The actions of these police would be held directly accountable to the council and the council would retain the power to relieve them of their duties.

This said, I have no problem with allowing ordinary citizens from being 'good samaritans' in a larger capacity than is currently encouraged in my area.

As for guns, there's a thread I made just for you. It may be a difference in culture like you said.

With that said, i believe that in a post revolution scenario, there won't be a centralized police, rather every district should have it's own force, that serves that particular district, free from central orders. The central government has access to the army. Then there is a more even distribution of power among the land.

That sounds alright to me, but I suspect that you would disagree with the suggestion of a standing militia like Switzerland has. I think that a standing army should be small, but there should be a large militia that could be quickly trained into the regular army. I certainly think that there would be more than enough people willing to train for a couple of weeks a year. In the United States there are many military members serving in the reserves that train monthly and I heavily suspect that if the army were smaller and that there was more available space in the reserves that there would be many, many reservists out there. I would think that the same would prove true of a militia.

I know a lot of people that would do it for free if it were legal actually.

I prefer a sort of middle ground between many of the solutions and views presented here.

First and foremost, if the existing established police system is to be kept, we must increase accountability on the officers. A few ways to do this is increased information gathering, namely, increased public surveillance systems, and requiring all officers to carry with them personal recorders (audio, or both audio and visual) in order to provide a complete account of actions and situations. There are other things we can do in this regard, making the best use of emerging technologies, such as RFID chips (placed, for example, in badges to track when a officer is in his vehicle, or on a gun). There is also a need to stop prejudicial law enforcement in regards to the police themselves, such as 5 officers being involved in brutality, and only one facing legal consequences. The officers themselves should not be above the law.

Combined with this would be expanded community watch programs. Made up of volunteers, these groups would receive basic training in self-defense, apprehension of offenders, and knowledge of basic law by the police, and work with the police to watch over and protect their neighborhoods.

I agree with requiring that they wear recorders, but I would rather have the police more integrated with the community to reduce incentives towards 'otherizing' the people they are trying to protect or deal with when enforcing laws. That, I believe, would do more to change the attitudes of the police and more to change their end behavior.

This could be done several ways: making citizens take on more of a policing role (militia/citizen type policing), making the administration of the police more accountable to and made up of the people instead of being appointed, or both.