Abolition is the only path forward. You can't reform this.
Wouldn't it be better to just fire complete departments and clear them out from top to bottom? This would let you re-hire as necessary but with new rules in play. You might end up with some of the same old people but they now know the trapdoor can open.
Most of the problems with police are at the top. Not the bottom. This includes the laws they use like civil forfeiture and other silliness. That's your real target. Why aren't the abolish people going after that?
You don't abolish police -- you abolish policing. In order to do this society needs to identify and eliminate the reasons for crime in the first place--i.e., ensuring access to basic needs like food and housing, for one thing. Abolition necessarily involves a transformation of our entire society, and may take more than one generation.
Plenty of wealthy people still commit crime.
From what I have heard, there is still quite a lot of domestic violence going on there, not to mention raping of female servants. And it has zilch to do with material insecurity.
Genghis Khan didn't build towers out of severed heads because he lacked gold and silver. Some people are just, sorry for saying that, sick fucks.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6610...
"The prevalence of psychopathy in the general adult population can be estimated at 4.5%." Remember: it's much more frequent in males, where that number can be 2-3x of that, can be close to 1 in 10 in males.
"prevalence of psychopathy among university students is significantly higher than among people from the general community". I'd guess increased affluence and better childrearing will result in more university students as well.
I'd go as far as to say that "boundless affluence" and "perfect childrearing" may in fact produce even more psychopaths, not less, as it is not quite a pathology many assume. Many traits are actually more adaptive vs general population.
It's probably important to point that there is further nuance. in primary(as in born that way) psychopathy the hallmark is total absence of anxiety and remorse. In secondary (upbringing, trauma, etc) psychopathy, anxiety can often be fairly high.
You might reduce some secondary cases of psychopathy with your proposed measures, but boundless affluence will also result in higher SSRI usage to prevent unwanted anxiety or stress (the rich tend to use antidepressants more, don't have the reference handy now, but its fairly obvious the rich have fewer problems with access to mental health services), and SSRIs tend to increase some psychopathic traits (charm+boldness), which perhaps can push some borderline cases into the proper psychopathic territory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202964
Also, not everywhere is America. Sweden had a fairly nasty eugenic program, for example.
>Five judges out of nine go a long way.
It sounds like you have some hidden assumptions. To me, it looks like you're casting aspersions on people who advocate progressive social change. But I'm sure that's not your aim, so why not just state outright what you really think and clear up my misunderstanding.
… Which is? What, exactly, is coming to your mind?
Because it looks like you’ve drawn the conclusion that seeking to improve our society in any way is a slippery slope toward eugenics.
And I don’t see how that follows, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt to correct my misunderstanding, requesting for you to elaborate on your point.
A few random ideas:
* fewer armed police, and being armed requires a higher level of experience/training/psych evaluation
* 100% public access to all police body cam footage.
* require police officers to maintain their own liability insurance, and have rates based on the a number of KPIs related to public safety and ethics
Body cams might be an example of something that is good on paper but actually just distracts people from things that actually address a problem.
Parent comment was dismissing reform as a path forward though.
And, do you have a working example?
Another step would be to recognize that you cannot reform american police departments' roles in non-violent crime cases and offload some or all of those entirely to other agencies that don't carry guns. This doesn't fix everything, but it removes many opportunities for things to go wrong while also enabling armed police to focus on the threats that really need them.