A conscripted police force?
Professional militaries have a poor track record when it comes to overthrowing governments. Conscripted citizen armies on the other hand have a much better record. A good historical example of this is ancient Rome. The Roman republic was founded with a citizen army and became an empire only after the professionalization of its legions. We might actually be witnessing history repeating itself south of the border.
More recent history has many examples of professional militaries seizing control of the state, just look at Latin America in the twentieth century. Conversely when conscripted soldiers refused to shoot on fellow citizens in red square it lead the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So why wouldn't a conscripted police force be just as effective in preventing a police state?
Discuss
Simply put "Cause I don't wanna be here and the only action I get is busting heads. Look at that n*** ..." And let the fun begin.
But all joking aside, regardless of the eventual outcome, I think it's safe to say that most police recruits start out with some level of idealism. Force "everyone" to serve and that goes away.
I'd love to be a conscripted police office ... it would be incredible to be able to tell the Chief to go fuck himself when he gave me some fascist order, knowing that the worst he could do is fire me.
I'd love to be a conscripted police office ... it would be incredible to be able to tell the Chief to go fuck himself when he gave me some fascist order, knowing that the worst he could do is fire me.
In the past conscripts have been jailed and shot for disobeying orders so I doubt that would be the worst that could happen to you.
@ NoYards
Except that in the old days, conscripted (or pressed) or not you could get shot or whipped just the same, and even a corrupt police force depends on following the chain of command.
@ Tommy B
I'd be interested in hearing more examples of why you think a conscripted force would be better. I could see a militia-style organization, but I don't think conscription would fly for anything other than a wartime call-up.
I think it's an idea that would be far too unpopular to sell, I think it would make for an even worse police force, and I'm not convinced it would actually solve the problem.
People don't like conscription, and I think it would be especially hard to bring in in a place where we have rarely ever had it. Mandatory service was useless in Europe, especially after the cold war ended. I have several friends who ran to Berlin and one who tried to plead insanity and finally hid out in the woods to avoid it, and another who took the pacifist alternative and had to put up with a couple of years of menial slave labour, and being treated like a dog.
That said, the Swiss system looks interesting, on paper, anyway.
But really, I think it would make for a really shitty undisciplined police force full of people who are not cut out for the mental and physical rigours of the job. And besides, people in a position of traditional hierarchical power naturally tend to abuse it.
Remember this recent revisiting of an old experiment?
http://www.euronews.net/2010/03/17/electric-shock-game-show-shocks-tv-re...
Or the guard/prisoner experiments that have also been made?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
I agree that the police system should be completely rebuilt. The corrupt blue wall that we have right now is complete bullshit. But it is a difficult job that to be done properly requires serious discipline, and frankly not everyone is cut out for that line of work. Picking people out of a hat will not result in better or more compassionate cops, IMO. We already have to deal with bad and abusive rent-a-cops. I would hate to think of some of them with guns in their hands.
THat said, this is a great discussion, and I would like to here other opinions.
I think a no-guns approach to the police would be interesting. At least in canada, in the us....well that may not work so well, as so many of them are armed so to speak. but i think "de-gunning" the blue bloc would go a long way in making the force less violent prone. that sounds rather peacnik onscreen, but maybe it's my obsession with martial arts and shaw brothers, but i always have felt guns are cowardly and easy- in the sense of usage. if someone doesn't have a gun they have to be more creative in resolving civilian issues. i am not saying no weapons altogether- just the gun.
it's funny b/c my singaporean dad, emigrated here to escape military service- which is mandatory- in the 70s. looking at how authoritarian s'pore is, i can't say i'd agree to conscription especially b/c in my view the police/military often serves the needs of the state and corporate property before the people (the violent arm of the state)... just some thoughts. excited to hear the next reply though.
Trying to dust off my memories of readings about Republican Rome, and the military. It may have been a "conscript" army at one time, but I don't think you could compare that to, say the kind of conscription we saw, for example, in the U.S. during Viet Nam. Which was different altogether from U.S. conscription in WWII, even if it was technically the same. In Viet Nam, they used conscription because no one wanted to serve. In WWII, they used conscription (at least this was Roosevelt's spin) to even out the numbers so the millitary wouldn't be overwhelmed with volunteers all at once.
Similarly, military conscription in Republican Rome was tied to civic duty and civic pride, and also to the practice of clientelia (I can hardly spell in English, so if my latin is off, don't crucify me) where I as a citizen would serve in a Consul's army, say Pompey, and Pompey might represent my cause in extending my farm or in a law suit against someone or arrange a nice marriage for my daughter. Or, as consul, he'd find a nice bit of land for me to have as a State Pension after my 25 years service. The Baleric Islands off Spain were the pension for Giaus Marius' veterans, I believe. Though, Marius had to fight hard with the Senate to get it, as preventing a political opponents attempts to pension his client soldiers was fair game.
In the Republic, there was a standing army Consuls and Pro Consuls commanded, but in times of crisis, say during Hannibal's foray onto the Penninsula, or the slave revolt under Sparticus, the citizenship was levied and you had to serve or, I guess, forfeit your citizenship-- probably tantamount to a death sentence in Rome, considering how non citizens were treated. Other crisis included the many civil wars were guys like Crassus and Ceasar and Pompey the Great would raise what were private armies at sometimes personal, sometimes state expense.
Military service under Alfred the Great, "the fyrd" I think it was called, depended on farmer volunteers. A good way to run a citizen army, but you need your Danish enemy close at hand a county or so over to make everyone realize just where their self interest lies. Fucking Danes.
As far as police forces go, Rome had it's police: The military was actually barred from entering the city of Rome under the Republic.
They called these "police" lictors. At various times they were chosen by the magistrate they were protecting. Again, the clientela system-- I guess we'd call it patronage-- undoubtedly came into play here.
Their symbol of office was a bundle of sticks bound together with an axe down the middle. Taking out the axe and using it to cut the bindings so the sticks could be distributed to the lictors for crowd control would be similar to our "reading of the riot act".
The bundle of sticks with the axe was called, interestingly enough, the fasces.
Which might ring a bell.
Tommy
You beat me to the anglo-saxon Fyrd system, which I think would be an excellent system for Canada.
However remember the backbone of the system were the Huscarls (Anglo-Dane) and Thegns. The professional fighting men.
I think it makes economic sense for any age and any society that you have, essentially a small core of highly trained professional soldiers in a standing army, backed by a trained citizen volunteer system, similar to Canada's malitia system or the U.S. National Guard system.
But the point I didn't make above because I was so eager to finally have an outlet for esoterica, is that if you want an army and a police force that works, everyone has to have a stake in it working, and a stake in it working properly. And, I mean properly in the sense of keeping proper order for everyone, not a select group-- as it evolved to being in Rome.
And in Toronto.
Sorry, thread drift
Oh hey!
Guess what I found!
I bought a book (not in good condition) last week. Published in 1900, all about the Boer War (to that point, I guess) written by a British Officer, with photos and some drawings. I've yet to examine it closely, and I'm sure it's propaganda, but a proper reading and examination will still provide... if not hard reliable facts... the smell of the times?
XD
"I volunteered for the army on my birthday.
They draft the white trash first draft here anyway"
---Copperhead Road, Steve Earl.
No matter what you do, you'll always find this kind of corruption, Webgear. And any system can handle a bit of it without things getting out of control. I'm sure Alfred the Great got a prized book or two thrown his way by someone getting his son a certain position, or out of an iky job.
But, what's been going on in this country for a long time now is not sustainable.
Tommy B:
Actually here's the experiment they were recreating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
And the system you describe sounds a bit like an expansion of something like Katimavik (my partner actually did the Navy option for one of her postings 20 years ago).
Good idea (but again, I think anything that anything not voluntary would be a very hard sell - also a hard sell for workers in fields those conscripts might be replacing - though we have a serious lack of skilled tradespeople).
But in terms of the police, I think nothing will really change without a fundamental change at the top level, or decentralization. The force needs to answer not to the mayor or the premier or the PM but to a body with a non-political grassroots connection to the community. I understand that police do a job that requires authority and discipline, but there has to be some way to have that without the wall of denial that protects bad cops and allows oppressive use of the police to take place.
Possible? Who knows?
XD
I think the concept of a conscripted police for may be worth considering. I've long said that there should be more progressives working as cops.
XD
@ Tommy_Paine
In my Society Utopian example I was thinking along the lines of an Athenian democracy and not the Roman republic.
You know, I'm far from any kind of expert on anythng, which is probably self evident but I'll say it anyway. But, I've read about all these different systems of government and how people organize themselves in large or small groups. And, I've done a small bit of work organizing people, whether it's through activism or through work, or recreation even.
And, it's my observation through reading and experience that there's no systems that work, and few systems that don't work. Systems are just systems and the best analysis can just tell you in economic terms which one, for it's circumstance is most efficient.
What makes a system work or not work is people's willingness to make it work or not work.
I remember at work, we had some old, old machines used to make small parts, and they were arranged in a process where a crew would work them and pass the parts down the line.
You know, those old (and, I bet some dated back to WWI) machines would hum and sing and pound out the product if the rate was such that everyone was capable of making some bonus for extra parts. You could turn out a few thousand a shift.
But, if the day was hot, or the rate adjusted too high or the guys pissed off about something, the best you could do would be to pound out half a thousand or so in eight hours.
And, if you walked down the line in each example, you wouldn't see anyone doing anything nefarious like sabatogeing the machines or anything on the slow days.
XD
It all comes down to a bit of philosophy, I guess, and that's not my strong suit.
But, people on the left, generally, abhor the right wing view that people always, and always should act in thier own self interest. We see that as a dark side of human behavior.
And I think the right sees us as naive, if not looney, for appealing-- nay-- demanding altruism from everyone.
But, I think the truth is that you cannot separate, ever, altruism and self interest. There is self interest in altruism. And, there can be altruism in self interest.
The trick in making any system work is to harmonize self interest and altruism.
XD
It's a paradox that I think I unravelled later. It's my way of saying that the system isn't the thing to focus on, it's how people fit into that system, whether they have a stake in it, whether they feel it works for them and they work well in it that matters.
All these systems break down at some point-- or seem to. I don't think they neccessarily break down as much as people just stop seeing them as working for them or that they work well in it.
XD
XD
Hmm.
Republican Rome actually had very few "laws" on the books, going back to the times of the Gracchi, but rather maintained order through unwritten conventions and traditions. There were just certain things you did and didn't do, there weren't actual laws pre or proscibing them.
But, as time went on, this magistrate or that magistrate pushed an envelope here, made some wiggle room there, and pretty soon it all fell apart and ended in endless civil wars that culminated in, first a succession of temporary Dictatorships, and ultimately the death of the Republic at the hands of... Ceasar? Brutus? Ciccero? Cato? Octavian? Lots of suspects there.
The vast majority of people are just regular average Joes and Janes, sometimes they do good and sometimes they do bad. The trick is to make a system that encourages them to do good.
And you went on to say you dissagreed with my description, but I'm not sure we dissagree. I think we are just using different words.
XD
But, I think the truth is that you cannot separate, ever, altruism and self interest. There is self interest in altruism. And, there can be altruism in self interest.
Recent scientific research on the brain has interesting stuff to say about this. But I'll tell you how I look at things.
The vast majority of people are just regular average Joes and Janes, sometimes they do good and sometimes they do bad. The trick is to make a system that encourages them to do good.
Now that sounds like religion (just kidding)
I'll settle for a system which helps the people work together to see that they have enough food, shelter and care, and which allows them to be free and does not oppress them.
And on Tommy_Paine's altruism-self interest thing, I wouldn't say that all right wingers believe in naked self-interest, even though so many in the U.S. are nuts about Ayn Rand these days. There are just as many conservative people who believe more in work ethic and fitting into society. I think many of them still have blinders on, but I don't think all or even most of the rank-and-file people who vote concervatives are coming form a place of mercenary self-interest, even though that seems to be the policy of the parties they elect.
And the bit about the people within the system determining how it works. I see that, but it's a bit of a chicken-egg thing because the people influence the system and vice-versa.
But the whole matter of the cops is also coloured by the difference in the job they do nowadays. They have to deal with things as disparate as organized crime, thug-work at events like the G-20 and having to deal with people who should properly be in care, but have been offloaded by cuts to our health system. I blame the cops for the systemic problems in their culture, but there are also things in the job they have to do nowadays that they are not trained to deal with. And there are a lot of problems in our society which simply get passed on until they wind up getting dealt with very crudely by the cops.
I know it's a bit of a tall order (though certainly no more optimistic than some of the things we are talking about here) but the more people can make connections and work with actual human beings in fhe police force the better chance there is of changing that system from within (at least in part).And I am thinking there is an opportunity to do that in areas where the police work overlaps with groups doing other community work.
Actually conscription might not be such a bad idea. then lefties like us would be a counterweight to the right wing overly aggressive power hungry types. perhaps it would democratize the force.
It all comes down to a bit of philosophy, I guess, and that's not my strong suit.
But, people on the left, generally, abhor the right wing view that people always, and always should act in thier own self interest. We see that as a dark side of human behavior.
And I think the right sees us as naive, if not looney, for appealing-- nay-- demanding altruism from everyone.
But, I think the truth is that you cannot separate, ever, altruism and self interest. There is self interest in altruism. And, there can be altruism in self interest.
The trick in making any system work is to harmonize self interest and altruism.
That's actually a very interesting observation. All people, to varying degrees, act out of self-interest in one context or another and most people engage in acts of altruism. That's human nature. And, so, I think you're right that the "trick" is to have a system which harnesses those human characteristics in a positive manner. To attempt to create a purely (or largely) altruistic system is to arrogantly believe that fundamental human characteristics (e.g., self-interest, fear, love, envy, hate, greed, etc.) can somehow be changed at will through clever social engineering. I think that human nature is what it is. But, perhaps social systems can be designed which acknowledge that fact and channel those characteristics in a positive direction.
XD
The OP posed a very good question that goes all the way back to the Paris Commune and the Programme of the French Workers Party. The former abolished the Morality Police, while the latter called for full local control over policing functions.
I think that you have your facts wrong, but more to the point what are you referring to with this post?
I always accept factual correction graciously and with thanks, so feel free to correct me where I went wrong. The point I was making late, late, late last night was that while there was a will to make things work, things worked, without even that much formalization. But, as first one person and then the next took a little liberty here and a little leeway there with convention, things started falling apart.
All people, to varying degrees, act out of self-interest in one context or another and most people engage in acts of altruism. That's human nature. And, so, I think you're right that the "trick" is to have a system which harnesses those human characteristics in a positive manner
Not quite what I'm saying, it's a little more zen than that. We tend to think of self interest and altruism as opposites, but I'm of the view that they are inextricably linked, that they are both descriptions of the same behavior. Maybe an example would be sound. Self interest may be a very, very loud sound, and altruism very quite, but they are still sound.
Because we are a social animal, all altruistic acts can be related to self interest. And self interest often can be seen as altruistic, or have altruistic effects. It may seem like self interest to keep yourself clean, reasonably well fed and healthy, but those acts have a positive effect on the rest of society by making yourself less likely to spread contagion.
The dog eat dog capitalist system encourages people to have a me-me me first, I've got mine fuck you attitude.
It's actually quite worse than that. This type of capitalist system encourages taking without providing any value in return. There's nothing much wrong with enriching yourself by doing something that creates value in return. Where it all goes askew is when those that do nothing are rewarded obscenely, and held up as a positive example.
Grade 3 math will tell you such a system just can't sustain itself.
Yes, I'm looking at you Kevin O'Leary.
That kind of ethic is not even within the bounds of narrowly interpreted self interest, it's a perversion.
On police and conscription, I broke up a fight on thursday night by stepping between three older teens and the other teen that was being pumelled by one of them. Can you imagine, if I was a cop, the paper work, the court time, the legal fees?
I figure I saved the nation about ten grand, easy.
But it made me wonder if conscripted police were more like just people who hung around with a radio and watched, and only did things that were within the bounds of simple training, and alerted a professional member of a police force when necessary?
I guess such a thing is fraught with too many what ifs and potential dangers in this super litiginous society. But, hey. It'd be nice.
Actually, the "Block Parent" organization started here in London, and it was a fairly successfull thing, as far as those things go. "Nieghbourhood Watch" not so much, I think-- although that probably varies from place to place and I suspect it gets active in places when shit starts to happen in a neighbourhood.
No, I was thinking of a conscripted police force sort of along the lines of the English "Bobby" from the 60's. Unarmed, trained in basic things. But not people who would, say, respond to an armed hold up.
There has to be incentive though. Was Robert A. Hienlein way out of line by suggesting citizenship should be earned? I mean, I think maybe it should be-- but not in such a way that only blonde haired and blue eyed people need apply. But two years service to the state, in exchange for citizenship geared so that pretty much anyone (and those who are too disabled not to be able, get citizenship regardless) can participate?
It gives everyone an incentive, and a stake.
Citizenship earned?
No, no no! Think seriously for a moment what you are talking about. Of course we all have a responsibility to make things better, but once you start setting up a system with first and second-class citizens, or residents with no citizenship whatsoever (as in citizenship being withheld or removed) well.... there are plenty enough bad examples of that around the globe. And I think it would be against the Universal declaration of human rights. (edit) article 15
There are already financial and other requirements for immigration, and reasonable though some of them may be, that is enough inequity for me.
(edit) and while I understand the argument is to give the people greater control by being more engaged in the state, what we are actually talking about here is the state having greater control to compel residents into service. I see the point, but it is somehting that could be really good but also really really bad, depending on who's running the show. My short answer is that anything that is compulsory would be too impractical and too unpopular to ever succeed.
And about cops and paperwork you are right, I took a ride with a couple of rural detachment cops one Saturday night. THey caught a DUI around 1:30 and that was enough to shut the both of them down until the end of the shift at 6 am. We were all night waiting for the towtruck, going to the detachment, doing breathalizer, paperwork.... there wasn't even anyone patrolling when the bars actually let out for the night.
But there isn't really any way around that stuff.
No, no no! Think seriously for a moment what you are talking about. Of course we all have a responsibility to make things better, but once you start setting up a system with first and second-class citizens (as in citizenship being withheld or removed) well.... there are plenty enough bad examples of that around the globe
We have plenty of non citizens already in the country. In Rome, being a non citizen was pretty harsh. It pretty much meant that a Roman citizen could do anything he wanted to you and you had no legal recourse. Including acts of depravity I would like to think not all of us could imagine.
I'm not suggesting that lack of citizenship be full of penalties and exclude one from, say, charter rights or many of the rights we currently enjoy...on paper... But maybe full citizenship entitles one to employment in government for one, and free post secondary education for another.
XD
@ Tommy_Paine
THat's not the same thing as witholding citizenship (I actually edited a bit - noted above) while you wrote that.
You would still run into a rats nest of equal access charges and charter challenges, IMO,
Again, I hear you and I understand your intent is good, but this kind of state control of is more what one would find in a state moving toward totalitarianism. If it were someone from the right wing suggesting it everyone here would hit the ceiling.
XD
I'm just a layman when it comes to the law (even though I have successfully defended myself in court), perhaps a law professor in your area will be of help, or a good book.
Really, Tommy B, there's no need for catty insults. I've read several books in my life, I'll have you know. We're having a relaxing tossing around of ideas with no consequence.
You are correct in that much of our law or system of laws is based on Roman foundations, but I was talking about Republican Rome, and even then, the period that predated the end of the Republic. It is but a fraction of Roman history. Most of the Roman law you refer to came in the days of the Imperial Rome.
Re, altruism
So, you helped someone out not because they needed help, but because you desired to feel good. Selfish bastard, ain't ya?
Zen is either used by people who fail at syllogism or who are obfuscating.
That's a false dichotomy. It could be both.
6079 Smith W,
Again, I hear you and I understand your intent is good, but this kind of state control of is more what one would find in a state moving toward totalitarianism. If it were someone from the right wing suggesting it everyone here would hit the ceiling
That's all very true, and for that reason such an idea is really a non starter beyond an esoteric bandying about of ideas. But, on the other hand, your argument against is the "slippery slope" argument. Generally, it's regarded as a fallacious argument, but under certain circumstances I think it can be a valid argument.
However, it can be said of any law that it's the "thin edge of the wedge" of one thing or another, or the "slippery slope".
As we saw last week, if there's a will to have totalitarianism, then our Charter sure as hell isn't going to stop it, nor are our politicians.
XD
XD
@ Tommy_Paine
Yeah, I know having katimavik doesn't mean we are turning in to North Korea. I should have stated more clearly that I meant "totalitarian" in the sense that the state starts involving itself in every aspect of a person's life, and sees every citizen as its instrument - sometihng that makes totalitarianism distinct from fascism. That's what I mean - set up a strong system for grassroots engagement in the state and you have something that is very attractive for someone who might want to turn it on its head.
Again, the only place I know of that seems to have managed it on a large scale is Switzerland - where every man is part of the army militia (required to keep a firearm at home), then part of the national guard - from age 20 to 50. And Switzerland is a small country which has avoided involving its people militarily in the outside world.
Strangely enough, I was at a potlick last night where someone came up with the answer (and we weren't even discussing this issue) :
"We have to start joining the public service and the police and border patrols." She is certainly right in that conscription would only take a cross section of our existing populace. It you really want to reform, the thing to do is start doing it yourself. But who is up for that task, and would it work?
Yes, I believe citizen should be earned. The people should give 10 years of service for the country, in order to receive certain rights and privileges.
Of all people will be given an opportunity to serve, those with disabilities can be give positions that will suit their needs.
There will be a basic level of rights and privileges for those that decide that citizenship is not for their liking.
Sounds familiar
Again, the only place I know of that seems to have managed it on a large scale is Switzerland - where every man is part of the army militia (required to keep a firearm at home), then part of the national guard - from age 20 to 50. And Switzerland is a small country which has avoided involving its people militarily in the outside world.
Wasn't it Switzerland that just banned Minnarets or something? And while they seem not to involve themselves in some of the more horrendous actvities of their European neighbours, they sure didn't blanche at profitting from them.
Anyway. The idea of using Citizenship or something as something to be earned is really just a means to the end of creating an ethic that we put more into society than we take out: that each generation leaves a tangeable legacy.
@ Tommy_Paine
Actually Switzerland has been involved in the worst of the worst - financially, and many of its corporate interests are certainly involved politically as well. After all, where did the Nazis keep much of their loot, and why didn't they invade?
And it is a very conservative country. I was just speaking in terms of its people and armed forces, because they are a more extreme example of a militarized population that has remained democratic.
Yeah, I got you on that, I just thought it interesting that such a system is in a country with those kinds of ethics. It'd doesn't follow that it has to be that way, but it's interesting, I think.
That's one of the downsides of democracy. Sometime you get results you don't like.
Kind of like this.
@ Webgear
You should read Tacitus's account of the Legion mutiny. along the Rhine. After Augustus died the troops did not swear allegiance to Emperor Tiberius, and had numerous grievances which had been left unresolved. Their military leader, Germanicus (to whom they were also loyal) used numerous tactics, including forged documents, and an offer of suicide, to keep them under control. Even after he rounded up and executed the ringleaders he had to take the legion to war because he did not trust what they might do if they remained at home
@ Webgear
Exactly... professional in training. Not so in allegiance to the state.
(and their greatest military weapon was their daily ration of wine, which allowed them to sterilize their water while their enemies fell ill from gastric ailments)
I'm sure you also know that things would have gone smoother in the story I related had Germanicus not died (poisoned, probably) because he would have become emperor rather than his son Caligula, who went completely mad partway through his reign.
Thanks for that. I hadn't heard that bit of history yet.
Trust and loyalty must be earned by the state.
You are right, but the last people I want making that decision are the guys with all the guns. Deciding when the government has lost its trust is the job of the electorate, not fellows like Mr Pinochet or Franco.
I prefer to see soldiers and police on a tight, short leash, and the only decision they should make is how high when they are told to jump. They make a promise to be loyal I'd rather not give them any more excuse to break promise that than some them have already.
Well I guess we'll get to find out how thisi works after all. Good thing it's happening in a country where they don't all carry guns.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/27/uk-govt-proposes-vol.html
Speaking of history, I'd like to bump up this thread with discussion back on the police and not on the military:
More recent history has many examples of professional militaries seizing control of the state, just look at Latin America in the twentieth century. Conversely when conscripted soldiers refused to shoot on fellow citizens in red square it lead the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So why wouldn't a conscripted police force be just as effective in preventing a police state?
Discuss.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
Marx certainly exaggerated things when he said "Having once got rid of the standing army and the police..." In the paragraph beforehand, he said that "the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune." The Programme of the French Workers Party called for "the Commune to be master of its administration and its police."
[This is more realistic than part of the CPGB's programmatic statement that "The existing armed forces and the police will be disbanded. In their place there will be a people's militia that will embody the right of everyone to bear arms" - as if militias can take over policing functions.]
What was abolished, however, and in spite of the ban on gambling, was the infamous "Morality Police" (according to Engels), akin to Islamist religious police Committees for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Other things to consider is the nuance between the regular police for dealing with regular crime, police units that merely issue tickets both personally and commercially, criminal investigation functions (FBI), and of course the more repressive sections of the police (riot police, "domestic intelligence" re. "national security," etc.).
Discuss.