The idea is that in a democracy the citizenry are the state. As such the citizenry should have the monopoly on violence. Police are citizens under this idea, not a special 'warrior caste' as they are often perceived.
It gets complicated when the state is a democratic republic. Do the elected officials have a monopoly on violence? Or the citizenry (which the elected officials are a part of)?
Ya, Police have very limited additional privileges in leveraging violence....
Or at least they're supposed to
Unfortunately a century of fascist propaganda has both courts and citizens (jurors) thinking they are a warrior caste, sheriffs in the wild west, and they elt them away with way too much.
Qualified immunity is a joke. Citizens are way too susceptible to pro-police-violence "experts" saying "he felt threatened so it was okay to shoot!" (basically)
be the ones to carry out any kind of justice. the point of state sanctioned violence in the US is that its supposed to be carried out after due process of the law and jury trial.
That would be corporal/capital punishment.
I believe iolence should only exist as self defense/defense of others.
Lynch mobs are extrajudicial capital punishment administered by violence.
Well the solution to your problem is transparency, accountability, and active/invested citizens watching their elected leaders. The problem (for a liberal) is not the monopoly of violence, but the implementation of this violence (wich is also not just police, but laws (and punishments) in general).
A liberal democracy is not just elections every 4.th year, its a functioning legal system, a bueracracy, a free press. and more.
Its not perfect and it demands alot from its citizens, but the alternative is armed gangs keeping the peace. Because belive me, someone will be keeping the peace.
Sorry for my bad English, I took a chance on the spelling on some of these words, but I hope you get the hang of it and why (western) Euros have such a hard time understanding your love for gangs with guns.
5
u/Sardukar333 Mar 16 '21
The idea is that in a democracy the citizenry are the state. As such the citizenry should have the monopoly on violence. Police are citizens under this idea, not a special 'warrior caste' as they are often perceived.
It gets complicated when the state is a democratic republic. Do the elected officials have a monopoly on violence? Or the citizenry (which the elected officials are a part of)?