On the night of May 14, 2010 16-year-old Bronx resident Kalief Browder was walking home from a party. He was stopped by police and “identified” by a stranger as a robber. Despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever, Browder was put in prison where he remained for three years. He missed the birth of his cousin, holiday after holiday with his family, and his high school prom. After three years in a cage he was suddenly released. All charges had been dropped. Even though Browder is suing the city, and even if he wins, his life will be forever changed. He will never get those missed years back.
The case has naturally been met with media and public outrage. How could this happen? How could our justice system make such a profound and life shattering mistake? How can we fix this? Some will argue that reform is necessary, while others will argue that some government agents are going to need to lose their jobs. For anarchists, though, only one solution will suffice: Abolition of the police institution and the state at large.
To understand why abolition is the only viable option, it is important to understand the history of the police in the United States. There are two main starting points for the institution. In the north police were primarily used for controlling workers who might otherwise revolt against the political class. In the south they were primarily used for catching escaped slaves. Both of these, coupled with the aggressive criminal monopoly of the state, meant an evolution directly leading to such cases as Browder’s imprisonment and worse. Since such an institution is well beyond any hope of reform, how do we destroy it, and what do we replace it with?
There are a variety of tactics for resisting and replacing the state, but the one I favor most is agorism. One thing I like to ask people when debating the validity of the state and its monopoly on security is this: How do you think the police would behave if we could simply call and cancel our accounts? How inclined would they be to imprison a teenager if they were fully accountable for their actions due to market forces and social pressure? I would wager that they would behave differently. Not because of some magnanimous spirit that didn’t exist before and not just because we could put them out of business, but because we could also go after them as the criminals they are. Those two elements, market forces and social pressure, are largely missing from the current paradigm. Stripped away from the false virtue of statism, they are nothing but people who do their jobs poorly at best, and murderously at worst.
Sadly, there will continue to be more like Browder who watch years of their life tick away as the criminal political class and its soldiers kidnap, torture, imprison and kill innocent people. The way we stop them, the way we fight them, is by taking away the illusion that they are the only option for a secure and free society. They are violent criminals, and they have no place in a free society.
Citations to this article:
- Travis Eby, Without the State, Who Will Falsely Imprison Teenagers?, Before It’s News, 11/24/13
What if in your market utopia I don't consent to the jurisdiction of the competing defense agency you've hired to protect you against my alleged "initiation" of force. Am I SOL, possibly locked away like Browder without what we call charitably due process? From whom do I seek a remedy if your defense agency doesn't consent to the jurisdiction of a "higher court," much like the U.S. won't consent to the Law of Afghanistan or the International Criminal Court?
And "no," I'm not a state apologist.
You pose a rational question for which I don't have an answer. However, I can only present a theoretical answer, based upon my confidence in Freedom. When men are free, the degree of innovation that will erupt from them will make the progress of the past seem trivial compared to what will be forthcoming. Such progress will not only be in the physical and biological sciences, but also in the social sciences, which presently are not even a science. Free men rationally desire peace and harmony. As such they will innovate new ideas and methods to deal with the problem you have presented. It is pure arrogance to think that "if I can't figure it out, then nobody can figure it out." In 1903 the most noted scientist of the day claimed that "man will never fly", but that year two bicycle mechanics proved him wrong. I hope this helps.
narkad28
Well, at least you admitted you don't have an answer. But, confidence in freedom and anarchist abstractions don't guarantee the success of some "stateless" form of community security. I have considered this possibility as a writer here at C4SS and as a former criminal justice student who opted out of a career in law enforcement due to moral qualms about policing in the US. I have concluded that most proposed schemes would not lead to safer communities.
This article in particular talks about an abuse of police power, suggests policing be replaced by something akin to an alarm company and then fills in the rest of the space with standard anarchist rhetoric about the "criminal political class" and all the rest. Its the usual libertarian formula and it will only convince the converted.
Former Madison, WI police chief David Couper has some suggestions for improving police accountability. He recommends requiring police to purchase malpractice insurance like healthcare professionals:
http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/p…
This, combined with authentic police accountability bodies (w/ subpoena power) and an end to atrocious policies like drug prohibition could lead to real and lasting improvements in policing. These changes could happen in our lifetimes. It would be nice if Left-libertarians would embrace ideas like this instead of fantasies that will probably only work in intentional communities (communist rural communes and propertarian gated communities, etc).
I think that's an excellent start. But let's go further. Prosecutors should have misconduct insurance too. While we're about it judges. Why not?
Absolutely, Mick. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for the misdeeds of any of these criminal justice actors.
One more thing (I know I've been giving you guys a lot of crap recently, so I'll give it a rest for awhile)…
Try convincing the public that privatizing the police (and that is what this sounds like, even if you reject that description) is the way to go. People do not have the upmost confidence in private security. Look at the depictions of private security in popular culture ("Paul Blart," et al). I have worked in private sector security (healthcare security in a proprietary model happens to be my specialty), so I know its not always as ineffective as people think it is. Indeed, it has numerous advantages over public law enforcement.
Look, your proposed model would actually elevate the status of those who work in private sector security. I have that incentive to buy into the Agorist approach, but I still don't find it feasible. I appreciate new ideas and I think policing needs a radical transformation, but Agorism won't cut it.
C4SS blogs are always hilarious. Good points mixed in with the worst history and economics I ever see.
Go to Counterpunch.org for the following article, posted 11-29-13, relevant to the above comments: "The Other Police State"