The merchant class and the origins of policing

With the recent events in Miami and the associated trade talks the question of the proper role
of law enforcement must be examined. I have thought about the legitimacy of members of
law enforcement who engage in protecting the corporate forces that maintain control over
this country. Is this a proper role for police. These trade and economic issues are political
and when the police engange in the protection of one side at the expense of the rest of us
does that act make them now merely political actors with no moral standing? Well, to consider
the issue of proper police behaviour it is necessary to look at how police came about.

It must be understood that policing has it's origins in the protection of the merchant class
and the issues of social control. Unrest by those who suffer at the hands of the merchant class,
today referred to as corporations, are directly related to the creation of societal policing.

this linked essay somewhat covers the topic:

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:-YswugYowBAJ:https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/undergraduate/modules/policing/downloads/structure_origins.rtf+origins+of+police&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Although the office of constable has a long history going back to Anglo-Norman times, it was low status and until the nineteenth century, law enforcement such as it was remained the province of the middle and upper classes. In the countryside, the Justice of the Peace Act 1361 led to three or four justices being appointed for each county to 'restrain offenders and rioters and to arrest and chastise them according to the law.' Generally how the law was used, against whom and when it was enforced were not matters for state initiative but for the aggrieved private citizen. This operated well within a status-based, homogeneous, essentially rural society but the transition from a feudal to a capitalist economy in the eighteenth century brought changing forms of economic organisation and wealth. The criminal justice system evolved to protect these directly through new statutory and common law offences and indirectly it brought about changes of attitude towards the idea of 'property'. But in terms of procedures, institutions and enforcement, the eighteenth century showed little in the way of development in the criminal justice system. One exception was Henry Fielding who, as chief magistrate for Bow Street, formed the first paid 'police' force. These Bow Street Runners were thief takers and later an armed patrol on the roads into the capital. Yet the patterns of social control were still largely centred in civil society and regulation of behaviour was frequently a personal matter, involving the propertied classes in their roles as squire or master as well as magistrate, members of the militia and sheriff. In the counties, the land-tie touched all points of existence, encompassing the worker not merely during working hours but also involving family relationships, the church, leisure and politics. The use of the criminal law, where needed, reinforced the bonds of authority and deference, bonds which themselves rested on property relationships."

as well as acting as watchdog over political and industrial unrest!

"the purpose of which was to prevent pilfering from the property of the West Indian sugar merchants."

"The old techniques of social control were no longer appropriate in the new industrial towns where the propertied classes were less eager to turn out as militiamen and saw it as the government's job to protect them and their property."

"While the growth of a large and flexible pool of cheap labour was of great utility for industrial capital, such a population would scarcely remain docile."

"The mere formation of a police force does not lead to public acceptance of them as holding legitimate authority. This has always depended on the police exhibiting various characteristics that can be seen as positive attributes or conversely as self-imposed constraints on the physical power of the state."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above mentioned self constraints are now being lifted. Miami is proof enough. p.s. sorry about my shitty formatting and long url's.

The police are usually and have always been on the side of those with the power and money. You can still see this in the inherent biases many police officers seem to have, especially when it comes to matters of class and race.

given the reactionary response some people have when the idea of policing itself is criticized.

That's no surprise.

that's no surprise either, but it has it's roots

These trade and economic issues are political
and when the police engange in the protection of one side at the expense of the rest of us
does that act make them now merely political actors with no moral standing?

The police certainly went too far but you mention they took sides. In miami there was no side to take, you couldn't sit back and allow the protesters to enter the buildings and disrupt meetings, that would be allowing them to brake the law.

I think you are too hard on cops, most of them just want to do their jobs, you know hand out speeding tickets and bitch at young drivers....oh and keep the streets safe. (I may not hate cops like the el_gato but I do hate speeding tickets!)

is that not taking sides when we can't even peacefully assemble and demonstrate?

I think you have a very sanguine view of what occurred in Miami.

But you make it seem the police should have been marching with them.

The police went too far in DC as well, they violated rights by arresting group before the march and taking all their signs. I agree with you that they crossed the line.

buildings & meetings.

There was no behavior displayed by the AFL-CIO to justify the way they were treated.

This is just another example of how the institutions in America are legislating fear. I blame the individual cops about as much as I blame the troops for being in Iraq - but somebody's giving the orders & they should be held accountable.

Always on the side of the oligarchy!!!!

Anyway, you basically proved that the entire basis for English Common Law (and pretty much all of Western Civilization) is property law. This is well-established fact. Criminal law was simply the state's ability to enforce property law. The police are the enforcement apparatus.

I mean, if you want to move away from property being the basis of our civilization, you can say that. But I'm still not sharing my surround-sound system.

no I'm just pointing out that the cops aren't there to protect you they are there to protect the corporate oligarchs who are destroying this country as well as the entire planet

thanks for playing

They have some good resources about the history of the merchant thugs...I mean...police.

you have eliminated all police? What then?

my goal is simply to point out that the cops are not there for YOU

this is not to say that there are not a few good ones out there just like alot of people join the military for honorable purposes but the overall purpose is not to protect you or provide justice

If justice was the goal the world would not be what it is today

And I hve personally been helped by police, and yes, I have gotten tickets too. From the time of the first human gov't, it has had to have somebody to enforce the edicts of that gov't. A policing type of institution has been around for thousand of years, and is a needed part of society or you have anarchy.

A ticket is hardly on par with having the crap beat out of you

or getting maced in the face , unprovoked,

Shot in the head with rubber bullets

randomly arrested

tortured in jail

so you concern me to say the least

--Boss Tweed, quoted in "Gangs of New York"

The police are there to protect property--the more property you have, the more protection you get.

//"Although the office of constable has a long history going back to Anglo-Norman times, it was low status and until the nineteenth century, law enforcement such as it was remained the province of the middle and upper classes. In the countryside, the Justice of the Peace Act 1361 led to three or four justices being appointed for each county to 'restrain offenders and rioters and to arrest and chastise them according to the law.' Generally how the law was used, against whom and when it was enforced were not matters for state initiative but for the aggrieved private citizen.//

there were Shires-

In 1682, the City of
London and County of Middlesex were deeply concerned with moves
by the Crown that would deprive them of the right to elect their
sheriffs (City of London's Plea to the Quo Warranto..., 1682).
Entreaties to the Court cite a long history going back to the
Magna Carta and further, to "time beyond the memory of Man"
Sheriffs achieved the pinnacle of their power after the
Norman Conquest of England in 1066. Shires were transformed into
counties, and the earl and bishop stripped of many of their
former powers. This void in authority was filled by the enhanced
power of the sheriff, now the preeminent county official
http://www.hamline.edu/~rhodsdon/elect.html

In three counties, Dade County, Denver County, Colorado, and
the county in which Seattle, Washington (King County) is located
the sheriffs are appointed

I find it interesting Seattle and Miami belong to these appointed Sheriff counties.

Arguments supporting election. The paper contains four
policy reasons in support of election of the sheriff:
1) The first policy reason is one of checks and balances.
The sheriff is an elected county official directly responsible to
the citizens which protects from undue influence by members of
the county board or by other county officials. There are also
several checks upon the unfettered discretion of the sheriff.
The voters can remove the sheriff from office during the
election; the county board, subject to appeal to the district
court, controls the budget; and in extreme cases statutes
authorize the removal of the sheriff from office for misfeasance
or nonfeasance of duty.
2) The second argument is that citizens should have the
right to chose who is to be sheriff. Since 1973, counties have
had the option of an appointed sheriff and no county has chosen
to do that. Citizens should have the freedom to chose their
sheriff, and, direct election is the best means to accomplish
that.
3) The third argument is that the election of the sheriff
is consistent with national traditions and practices. Election
of sheriffs is nearly uniform throughout the United States.
History has shown in those jurisdictions in which the sheriff is
appointed there is a decrease in quality and continuity of law
enforcement services and administration and when the sheriff is
subject to the whims and caprices of the board of commissioners,
the office becomes more politicized, not less.

I have seen reports of efforts to try to eliminate the county sheriff position because it is the only policing office that is elected and thus more a product of the community and thus held accountable