Non-violent offenders don’t generally need to be arrested though. A summons to court is enough. You discussed workplace safety for example, where I don’t think direct arrests are needed. However, where they are, the judiciary could deploy deputies to bring offenders to their appearances. There is still no reason that an investigator must be a cop.
A safety authority that can’t arrest is toothless and worthless.
I don’t understand this fetish for authoritarian arrests. Can you explain why they would be needed by a safety authority? Or why a traffic safety service would necessarily be police?
Before I explain myself, which I will, I’d first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
You’ve talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues. Which doesn’t really sound correct for the US, OSHA exists, but I don’t live there. I do know for certain that police aren’t involved in that process at all in Australia, it falls under WorkSafe. To me, that is an example of how investigative services can be provided by other bodies than the police. WorkSafe still has teeth, and could work directly with the judiciary when violations reach a criminal level. You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.
The entire issue with policing is that it’s one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps you’ve heard the term “we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong”? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasn’t in charge of investigation, that would be much harder.
Same with traffic enforcement. If they aren’t pulling you over and lying about “smelling marijuana” then less corruption is going to occur. Have their only job be traffic enforcement. Roadside drug and alcohol testing is important, people shouldn’t drive under the influence, but having weed in your glovebox doesn’t affect your ability to drive. I’ve actually joked to a number of friends that we should get a bunch of grandmas doing traffic enforcement. I think having an older woman tut and fuss at you like “come on now sweetheart, you know it’s not nice to run through a red light, you might hurt yourself or others” and give you the look would honestly be pretty effective in my opinion. (This last part is mostly a joke by the way.)
Where I live, both of these are already done by seperate, independent commissions.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from acquiring backup during those situations.
Sure. The people who arrest criminals will always be cops no matter how you dress them up.
Cops are not just the enforcers you don’t like. I suppose the most accurate definition would be a cop is a person with authority to arrest.
A safety authority that can’t arrest is toothless and worthless.
Non-violent offenders don’t generally need to be arrested though. A summons to court is enough. You discussed workplace safety for example, where I don’t think direct arrests are needed. However, where they are, the judiciary could deploy deputies to bring offenders to their appearances. There is still no reason that an investigator must be a cop.
I don’t understand this fetish for authoritarian arrests. Can you explain why they would be needed by a safety authority? Or why a traffic safety service would necessarily be police?
Before I explain myself, which I will, I’d first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
You’ve talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues. Which doesn’t really sound correct for the US, OSHA exists, but I don’t live there. I do know for certain that police aren’t involved in that process at all in Australia, it falls under WorkSafe. To me, that is an example of how investigative services can be provided by other bodies than the police. WorkSafe still has teeth, and could work directly with the judiciary when violations reach a criminal level. You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.
The entire issue with policing is that it’s one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps you’ve heard the term “we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong”? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasn’t in charge of investigation, that would be much harder.
Same with traffic enforcement. If they aren’t pulling you over and lying about “smelling marijuana” then less corruption is going to occur. Have their only job be traffic enforcement. Roadside drug and alcohol testing is important, people shouldn’t drive under the influence, but having weed in your glovebox doesn’t affect your ability to drive. I’ve actually joked to a number of friends that we should get a bunch of grandmas doing traffic enforcement. I think having an older woman tut and fuss at you like “come on now sweetheart, you know it’s not nice to run through a red light, you might hurt yourself or others” and give you the look would honestly be pretty effective in my opinion. (This last part is mostly a joke by the way.)