Militarization of the Police
Are you for or against the military patrolling the streets, being granted power of arrest and operating within the capacity of the standard police force?
This is not a debate about whether or not the United States should become a police state.
For
Side Score: 15
|
 |
Against
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
It has been done many times already with great effectiveness. For example, after Hurricane Katrina hit, the National Guard was deployed in the affected areas, and a large portion was used as a police force. The National Guard also served as a police force after 9-11 in airports, malls, and other high traffic areas. I don't think it's necessary most of the time however, and using the military for constant patrolling would further diminish it's resources which are already being spread thin by the current conflict in the middle east. But it is useful and highly effective when there is a need to quickly control a chaotic situation. Side: For
The National Guard is used to provide security, not to pursue criminals or to arrest civilians. They are not trained to do that, unless they are MP qualified. The National Guard will only be mobilized during emergencies, because National Guardsmen only work one weekend a month and the rest of the time they are working at civilian jobs or going to college (excluding AGR). Side: Against
1
point
In a time of crisis, there have been many instances in which NG infantrymen have been used to clear rubble away and rescue people, and MPs have been used to help put out fires and repair damaged machinery. In real life, a National Guardsman is often called to perform beyond his basic training or specialty. Things that work on paper don't always work in real life chaos. You as a military man should understand that. Side: For
1
point
|
While this is an intriguing proposal, I see several problems: 1: One of the reasons why governments separate their police and military forces is to make military coups more difficult. On the other side of the coin, it serves as a deterrent for establishing a dictatorship. Imagine if the majority of our armed and combat trained personnel shared a department that answered directly to the president. I think these are small concerns in America, but worth keeping in mind nonetheless. 2: Domestic crime prevention and war making require different training, equipment, regulations etc. Although there is some degree of overlap, I think each branch is likely to be more efficient when allowed to specialize. Also, I believe it is better for police forces to be localized and for military forces to be highly mobile. 3: Unless you severely over-saturate the police forces during peacetime, you would lose a lot of domestic personnel during war, thus decreasing the efficiency of domestic law enforcement. 4: If we get invaded while a significant portion of our troops are overseas, police make a reasonably strong line of defense. Side: Against
I think it would be better to privatize the police force. Right now the best way for the police force to make money is to give out tickets and fines... In the words of my friend Frankie Verdi... Pig Food. Solving murders and other crimes is very costly, time consuming, and doesn't bring the pigs much food. if instead however police forces had to compete for contracts based on their performance their motivations would change. Doing the best police work possible would be the way to get the most food, not giving out tickets and fines. This would also cause them to maintain a good relationship with the community that funds them. Especially when it's time for contract renewal. Some might whine that this leaves the poor without adequate protection. Well... all the more reason to get a decent job and move your ass out of the poor house. This would also be good motivation for people to be less careless with their money. I don't see much of a downside to it. Side: Privatize the police force
A downside to privatizing the police force is a significant loss of manpower and an increased potential for corruption. Blackwater, for example, is a private military organization that worked with the U.S. for years in Iraq and was exposed for corruption. You don't want people who want to do it just for the money. You want people who just want to do it even if the pay is average. Side: For
2
points
While I believe a military presence it a greater deterrent for criminals than a standard police force is, I think it is due to the following reasons: 1. The military has won wars, dropped atomic bombs, run Guantanamo Bay prison camp and generally kicked ass when they needed to. 2. The police are not supposed to shoot first and ask questions later 3. People in camo with big guns makes most people think that they will be in deep you know what if they step out of line 4. When have you ever heard of a soldier letting someone go witha warning for anything. All that being said, i still would rather have our police force used for standard local dometic issues. Side: Against
I'm against the militarization of the police. Thanks to the War on Drugs, you have SWAT teams ramming in people's doors at 4 AM and holding them at gunpoint in their own homes. Police go onto private property, sans warrant, and shoot dogs in their own backyards, even those that are already tied up! There was a case recently where an 11-year-old girl was held at gunpoint while in the shower by a SWAT thug during a drug raid, for a person who didn't even live at the house anymore! It's gotten out of control and needs to stop before we're nothing more than a third world dictatorship. Side: Against
|
