It's maybe a digression from the conversation about communism, but I've been thinking about the question of what an alternative to policing might look like. It's a multifaceted problem, and possible solutions would therefore have to be multifaceted. In short, there is no one answer, and anyone seeking one will forever overlook potential solutions which taken together could affect real progress. Some of what we need for true criminal justice reform actually lies outside the scope of criminal justice, because so many of our systems and problems are intertwined and overlap. In this case, I think we have to look at poverty, healthcare - specifically, mental health - and the proliferation of guns, each of which is its own monster.
But there are some real-world things we can look at which, when taken together, start to create a picture of what an alternative system of policing could perhaps look like. That is, the imagination we have to apply isn't entirely in the particulars, but in putting together existing, disparate pieces into a conceptual whole, a "bigger picture" that might at first seem utopian.
For example, there's a city in Oregon, I think it's Eugene, that has had social workers working alongside their other "first responders" for something like 30 years, and they've had great success. They've saved the city money and diverted people away from the criminal justice system. Other cities have had 'pilot programs' and whatnot, and I think some few have committed to it (Denver, maybe?) but only recently.
There's a city in Florida that, at least for a time, had great success with a rehabilitation program for people getting out of jail or prison. I seem to recall it had a jaw-dropping effect on recidivism rates, but I think the program may have been discontinued.
I think there are multiple cities that have implemented "diversion" programs at the criminal court level, for people facing drug use & possession charges (and I think there's at least one that was focused on helping veterans with the myriad problems they face). It's basically a court - defendants are taken before a real judge - but instead of being charged with a crime and arraigned, they're given the opportunity to get treatment, help with housing or finding a job, mental-health counseling, or whatever their problem is.
A number of cities have civilian oversight review boards empowered to investigate accusations of misconduct by police, and I think they're frequently quite effective.
A number of police departments are now training their officers in de-escalation techniques. I think it's too early to say whether this is having any effect, and anyway, a great amount of the problem is cultural, not merely about training or policy. Some writer, I forget who it was, writing about the culture of policing rightly said that "culture eats policy for breakfast." But still, providing officers with the tools and the official permission to de-escalate situations is a necessary, if insufficient, step.
A number of states and cities have imposed limitations on "qualified immunity" for police officers, or banned it entirely. I'm not sure the proverbial jury is in yet on the effect of removing that preferential treatment of police. I think a lot of the limitations and bans came only after the murder of George Floyd, so it's still early days, and I think fewer than a dozen states are doing it.
The federal Justice Department can also, by request, conduct an investigation of a police department's operations, identify problems, recommend solutions, and help implement them. This is not necessarily adversarial, as some Republicans would have you believe. In fact, in some cases, the municipalities and their police departments themselves have welcomed such interventions. I believe the mayor and police commissioner of Baltimore were among the people who objected when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the 'consent decree' implemented by the Justice Department under the previous administration.
There's one big problem that needs to be overcome, and I'm not aware that a whole lot has been done on this point yet: Get profit-making out of the criminal justice system, at every level, and in every way.
There was a time, in the 19th century, when firefighting was a profit-making business in big cities such as New York. It was a disaster, completely contrary to the goals of firefighting. Profit is completely contrary to the goals of criminal justice too, at every single level, because a proper criminal justice system would be focused on prevention and rehabilitation. Our criminal justice system is not about prevention or rehabilitation, and it can't be as long as companies make money off it. There are some places nibbling around the edges of this problem (e.g. moving away from for-profit prisons) but not a lot's been done.
Another example, get rid of bail. All bail. Everywhere. Some places are working on that. I'm not sure how far along they are or what the results have been.
Asset seizures is a major problem that has at least been identified as such - including by a Supreme Court justice - but I'm not sure any municipalities or departments have actually started to reform that yet.
So now we apply our imaginations. Imagine you're the mayor of a good-sized town or small city and you combine all of this stuff: You have a small police department. You have a 3rd or 4th branch of your emergency services that consists of social workers, who are dispatched by your 911 system to crises involving someone under the influence of drugs, or someone having a mental health crisis, or someone who's homeless, or domestic disturbances. You have a special court-room in your courthouse that's specifically for drug-users and homeless people and other people on the edge, not to let them off the hook, but to give them one, last off-ramp from the road they're headed down, and get them help instead of locking them up. Your police department is not allowed to seize assets without a court order, and your courts do not impose bail. You have a civilian oversight board empowered to investigate complaints from citizens. Maybe your town also doesn't allow police officers 'qualified immunity.'
Have I just solved all of our problems with policing? No, of course not, let's not be stupid. Have I started to assemble something that might be the start of something? I'll let you decide. But what I have done is assemble things that people are already trying and programs that have already been implemented, just not all together in one place. With the exception of getting profit out of criminal justice entirely, everything here already exists and has shown promising, if not tremendous, results.
