Pennsylvania Democratic U.S. House nominee Chris Rabb put a curious spin on police reform proposals this week. When confronted by Sean Hannity on Fox News, Rabb explained matter-of-factly that the Founders did not have a clue about what “policing” was, suggesting that policing was a later-developed concept. It appears that not just our Constitution, but our history must be rewritten to meet contemporary political demands on the left. Rabb’s claim is historically unfounded. Just ask John Morton, signatory to the Declaration of Independence and local county sheriff.
Hannity asked, “Would you like to abolish prisons and abolish the police?”
Rabb responded:
“Well, what’s interesting about that statement is, long before there was any notion of policing, we had founders that did not even understand that term. Policing has evolved. Ultimately, we want communities that are safe. And 99% of what police do [is] not going after the bad guys, all of that can be done in different ways by professionals who are trained to do so.”
It is a gross over-statement. Signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Morton would likely beg to differ after serving as a local sheriff. He would probably note that in the 1600s, colonies organized “night watch” forces that were precursors to formal police departments. The British governors also enforced criminal laws through their own forces. Constables were prevalent.
The suggestion is that the colonies and early American states had no notion of policing for crime. In fact, the first constable was appointed in the Plymouth Colony in 1632.
Likewise, the first prisons stretch back to 1720 in York, Maine. There was also the establishment of the larger Newgate State Prison in Greenwich Village in 1796 and a similar prison in New Jersey in 1797.
It is not clear what Rabb is suggesting. He is certainly correct that, like other aspects of modern life, policing evolved with technology and conditions. The use of private prosecutions was initially carried over to the colonies. However, public safety was a concern in the colonies as it is in early states. It is simply not true that the Founders lacked “any notion of policing.” Constitutional amendments from the Fourth (on searches and seizures) to the Fifth (on the right to remain silent and due process) to the Eighth (on cruel and unusual punishment) all limit the police and the courts in criminal cases. American grand juries were used to investigate and charge crimes.
The punishments in colonial and early American cases tended to be swift and final, viewed as needed deterrents of crime. That included floggings, pillories, branding, and, of course, capital punishment. Many of these traditions came from Great Britain, which protected public safety through a mix of constables, sheriffs, attorneys general, and private prosecutions.
This historical account appears to be an attempt to justify the common mantra to “reimagine” policing and prisons. Such changes are clearly choices for the public to make in the democratic process. However, suggesting that there was no conception of policing is untrue.
At the end of the day, the only thing produced was a lot of name-calling.
Tucker Carlson unveiled a 10-point vision for the United States on Wednesday, deepening his split with President Donald Trump and fueling speculation that the podcaster and former Fox News host will create a new political party.
In a nearly two-hour livestream, Carlson said that “both parties have colluded against the population to make their lives better and our lives worse.” Instead, he argued, America should be: 1) “fair,” with laws applied equally; 2) “sovereign,” free from foreign and corporate control; 3) “productive,” with revived manufacturing and agriculture; 4) “beautiful,” with clean, safe, and attractive cities; 5) “healthy,” with cleaner food and less dependence on drugs; 6) “honest,” with officials punished for lying and government records disclosed; 7) “optimistic,” encouraging Americans to have children as a basis for long-term thinking; 8) “wise,” with practical, reality-based education; 9) “decent,” rejecting unnecessary wars and support for atrocities; and 10) “united,” with a common national identity and a pause in mass immigration.
At the risk of sounding snarky, it’s too bad Hannity didn’t have the foresight to have an historian like yourself on hand to counter these ignorant remarks. But then there’s hardly room for anyone but Hannity on his show, let alone 2 guests! 🙂
Hannity loves to hear his own voice and I hardly ever watch his show because of it. Well that and if Trump said the sky is green Hannity would have Laura Trump on to show how blue is now green.
As a supporter of most of Trump’s policies, albeit not his braggadocio, embellishments, his tacky gold fetish and his need to attack the lowest of the low due to his thin skin, even I can’t stomach Hannity’s knee pad treatment.
What about those voices in your head? Seems hate is your goal in life. You hate everything and everyone.
Can’t count the number of times you made a point of hating commenters.
You are a hatemonger.
henriettasducks the issue. The issue is about abolishing the police by the DSA and ducking henrietta goes off about Hannity. Ducks are not really very smart and are not capable of following a train of thought. And so we have it.
If the constituents of PA3rd Congressional District, in and around Philadelphia, elect this moron who favors abolishing the police as we know it and abolishing prisons, they will have no one else to blame if criminal death and destruction there continues, and likely worsens, result. Replacing armed police with unarmed social workers when confronting an armed, crazed and psychotic criminal who has no respect for the law and with whom reasoning is impossible will likely result in a dearth of social workers available for that job, if any were willing to take that job in the first place. It is ashamed at what has happened to that once-great city.
Without police, how are you going to confiscate all of that personal property?
Without slaves, who will do all of the work?
There is considerable historical evidence to refute Mr. Rabb’s claim about no concept of law enforcement even prior to the formation of America. It’d be interesting to find out what his concept of “policing” is. Frankly, the cops would be thrilled to be relieved of responsibility for dealing with those with mental health issues. However, as I understand it, communities who’ve tried an alternative have had a significant retention problem in that employment category. Including, per one report, the guy who spear headed the program after experiencing the realities involved.
As to alternatives to law enforcement and prisons as we know them, the late, great Robert Heinlein and history provide clues. His prevalent future featured “proctors” who’d ask “May I do you a service, citizen?” They were also equipped with stun grenades and other methods to assist them with those anti social individuals who were disruptive. I expect anti social citizens under the “progressive” system to be placed in resocialization clinics.
“. . . all of that [policing] can be done in different ways by professionals who are trained to do so.” (Rabb, the DSA candidate)
Those “professionals” are called the Cheka, NKDV, KGB. Those “different ways” include abducting citizens in the middle of the night, then “disappearing” them.
The socialists/communists ultimate goal is not to defend or dismantle the police. Nor is it to abolish prisons. Their goal, as it was with Lenin, is to replace the existing police with mindless thugs who blindly obey their edicts. And to replace the existing prisons with “re-education” camps and gulags.
In substance and in form, the D’s vanguard (from Piker to Mamdani on down) are *not* socialists. They are Soviet style communists fused with Islamic theocracy. Piker, in particular, is the lowest type of Soviet communist — a Stalinist (who also happens to worship Mao).
“Constitutional amendments from the Fourth (on searches and seizures) to the Fifth (on the right to remain silent and due process) to the Eighth (on cruel and unusual punishment) all limit the police and the courts in criminal cases.”
Exactly this. If no concept of “policing” existed, what need was there for Constitutional restraints on exerting police authority? Even if Rabb more had in mind some kind of nanny state morality enforcement at the State or local level, while I personally object to such a thing, I strongly suspect that it existed fairly widely until after the 14th Amendment was being uniformly enforced as a result of specific court precedents.
It’s also pretty bizarre to suggest that “99% of what police do [is] not going after the bad guys,” and that that function should be “done in different ways by professionals who are trained to do so.” Will you vote for an idiot who claims that police are not “trained to go after bad guys?”
Much as I disagree with Rabb, there is a common misunderstanding in terms of the responsibilities of LEOS. Cops are responsible for apprehending all law breakers. The congruence between a specific law and morality can be debatable.
Interesting how the rabble are preoccupied with the elimination of police, law and order. Every other sentence from their mouths is defund or eliminate police. Maybe they have a Lavrentiy Beria type in mind to keep us safe or should I say keep them safe? Each morning he’ll get a list of ne’er-do-well’s to visit?
“Maybe they have a Lavrentiy Beria . . .”
Exactly (except for the “Maybe”).
Just look at their models: Mao, Castro, Soviet Russia.
Sheriff is the direct lineal descendant of the Shire Reeve from well before the Norman conquest of England. You can trace the evolution of keeping the peace by a sheriff right back to the Shire Reeve. Rabb even admits that when he says “ Ultimately,we want communities that are safe”. Why? Because history has taught us that’s what policing does. Rabb is hand and glove into the same history retelling firestorm going on at the Smithsonian. To voters I would say just walk away.
They won’t walk away. Rabb will win. It’s deep-blue Philly where the D candidate always wins. Jeffrey Dahmer would win if he had a D after his name.
Whether Rabb’s statement is true or false, what is its relevance to the question Hannity asked? It comes off as a non sequitur.
Apple design team member: I think we should redesign the iPhone’s user interface.
Apple design team manager: Why?
Apple design team member: The Founding Fathers did not have iPhones.
Rabb, like so many Democrats and lately their malignant offspring, the DSA Marxists, have zero grasp of history. The original group of “constables on patrol” in John Morton’s era became, for brevity: “cops.”
Policing, although led by professionals, used to be everyone’s business. Witness thte hue and cry. Wikipedia:
” By the Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. 1. St. 2. c. 4), it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men between the ages of fifteen and sixty, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal”