I’ve just seen an interesting quote in one of my old Open University text books. DD101 Exploring Social Lives, page 373:
“A state claims a monopoly of legitimate force, but ironically it is only because ‘competitors’ (that is, criminals, terrorists, etc.) contest the state’s claim to have a monopoly of legitimate force that the state exists at all. A state that really did have a monopoly of legitimate force would have no reason to exist. Think of a state in which everyone acted peacefully and regarded all laws as legitimate. It would be wholly redundant!”
(Hoffman, 2007, p. 45)
Hoffman, J. (2007) ‘Sovereignty’ in Blakeley, G. and Bryson, V. (eds) The Impact of Feminism on Political Concepts and Debates, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Meaning: it is in the interests of the state to ensure there is always a threat of violence to its citizens to ensure its own survival as the ‘protector’. Or rather, the fear of the threat of violence.
So, the state is required to keep its citizens in a state of fear to ensure its own continuance. Scary stuff.
Now, since we know you are not a criminal until you have been found guilty of a crime, the ‘criminals’ Priti Patel refers to here must in fact by ‘citizens’, i.e., everyone who might break a law whether or not they have done so. That is, all of us.
“The new home secretary, Priti Patel, has said she wants criminals to “literally feel terror” at the thought of breaking the law.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49213743
So we should all have a permanent feeling of terror at what the state might do to us if we misbehave. Lovely.