> Sir Robert Peel and his version of the 'police service'
I assume that prior to the "modern" police, policing was still necessary, since there were lawbreakers and troublemakers since time immemorial. What do you regard as the substantive difference between the pre-modern police force and the modern? Did the former somehow serve "all of us" better than the latter?
Typically law enforcement was DIY, done by a mob, or done at the behest/in the interest of a local strongman (king or lord).
That led to extremely selective enforcement at the best of times.
The idea of a professional, independent force that served the public and preferred formal laws was the innovation.
Previously you’d need to either deal with it yourself, or track down a local patron and hope they cared enough to assign some muscle to deal with it on your behalf - and didn’t favor the perp more. Think ‘Godfather’. In those cases, written law was rarely a priority either.
> in the US they first emerged as 'slave patrols'
> Sir Robert Peel and his version of the 'police service'
I assume that prior to the "modern" police, policing was still necessary, since there were lawbreakers and troublemakers since time immemorial. What do you regard as the substantive difference between the pre-modern police force and the modern? Did the former somehow serve "all of us" better than the latter?