How can we have non-violent law enforcement?

Question

how could a nation go about it's crime and punishment peacefully and non-violently, even for those who resist arrest, attack police and stuff like that. Is there any non violent way for law enforcement

Answer 1

There is such a thing as passive weaponry, which relies neither on inflicting pain nor injury to a human target.

In the future, cops will likely carry glue guns or net guns which can instantly immobilize a suspect without hurting him. It is also likely that car chases will become a thing of the past as technology already exists which can fry a car's engine computer from a short distance, giving the fleeing motorist no choice but to stop. Unfortunately, the powers that be are resistant to change and still prefer to give the police a great deal of leeway in using injurious force and deadly weapons.

* Kaiden, you are wrong. The government defines what crimes are, and when there aren't enough real criminals (those who commit murder, theft, etc.) our politicians simply make up more stupid laws just to keep the cops busy and to make it seem like they're all doing something important for society.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."  -- Ayn Rand

Answer 2

I think force will always be necessary in law enforcement because criminals will always resist incarceration and capture. It's hard to take a non-violent approach when your dealing with violent subjects. However, I truly believe that as technology progresses, non-lethal methods of enforcement will become more and more prevalent. Non-lethal weaponry is still a relatively new technology that will progress as time goes on.

Answer 3

This is a very very good question. The answer to it isn't very easy either.

Firstly we need to have rules (if you wish you can call them 'laws') which come from the community up, rather than from the government down. If people themselves agree to follow a specific way, then there is going to be much less chance of the people to become anti-social.

Secondly, the enforcement of the rules cannot be delegated to an external authority (i.e. the police, the military, the local gang, the Mafia) because those organisations will eventually start imposing their own laws on the people and the only way they can do that is through violence. Have you ever wondered why there is a bigger penalty for punching a cop, then a cop gets when it kills a person?

Of course even if you do those things you will still have some people whose goals are to destroy the community you live in. The police force will actually be one of those people. I doublt that you can always be non-violent in that respect, not because non-violence doesn't work, because at the end it does ("First the hate you, then they beat you, then you win" - a paraphrase of Gandhi), but rather because you cannot tell a person not to defend oneself or one's community in the violent situation, you can only make that decision for yourself.

If you are interested i'm discussing some of these issues in my podcast that i've made recently http://freedom.libsyn.com/index.php?post...

Answer 4

The public isn't "non-violent" so police must be abrasive and at times violent.

Answer 5

Tazers are non violent. They subdue a person without making any violent gestures, threats, or contact. You just pop and go. The person goes down, no "violent" contact was made. Just a tool to subdue the person.

Answer 6

Violence shouldn't be used as a synonym for force - you can be peaceful and non-violent even while dealing with someone who is resisting arrest but that doesn't mean you can't use force.

I'm fairly sure that the words violence and violation come from the same root word.  The concept is that of doing things to a person without good cause or concern for that person.  This is in contrast to using force to control a person who is violating or has violated someone else.

So if you mean can we have law enforcement without violence - well, that's the intent but in reality, if someone is resisting arrest and hurts one of the arresting officers, there's a chance that the officer is going to react from the hurt they have received - we all do that at times.  Strong control needs maintaining over yourself, to avoid EVER starting to retaliate, and thus violate in return, rather than just restrain.

If you mean can we have law enforcement without force, the answer is no - not until every criminal abandons violation and responds calmly to being caught and I don't see that happening.

Answer 7

To have non violent criminals who will comply with the police.  Police are not generally violent, generally they resort to force ONLY when the actions of the offender leave an officer no choice.

  And it is not just criminals who can be violent towards cops.  If you try to commit suicide with a weapon, or jumping off a bridge, wouldn't you prefer a cop to use force to stop you from killing yourself, if needed?

Answer 8

The only way to achieve a non-violent law enforcement is if we live in a nation full of non-violent civilians.  Clearly, that is not going to happen.

Answer 9

As soon as you find us "non-violent" criminals, we can have "non-violent" LEOs

Answer 10

Liberal and I know you are, just because this question doesn't make any sense. We could try to talk to serial killers and drug dealers who are running from the law... that would work. Not to mention they would have guns and in your world the police wouldn't.