This phrase is not radical! It doesn't mean "get rid of all police," but it does mean "abolish policing as we know it."
The concept of defunding the police is on a spectrum and means different things to different people. However, the common thread is a complete re-imagining of public safety (which is currently not working for millions of people, and has not worked for centuries.) When people hear or see the phrase "defund the police," many of them immediately imagine empty police precincts and murderers running wild, unchecked. This is not accurate. The phrase is literal in that it means taking funds away from law enforcement, not getting rid of it altogether.
In short, defunding the police is about relocating public money from policing and putting it into community resources like social services that would actually prevent future crimes rather than simply reacting to ones already committed.
1. Police should not have to respond to all types of 911 calls
Police officers often do not do what we imagine. They are not constantly running after serial killers and bank robbers like we see in films and TV shows. In fact, most do not make more than one felony arrest each year. Instead, they have to deal with noncriminal issues like traffic violations (parking tickets, speeding, accidents, etc.) and noise complaints. They are also tasked with responding to issues they are not correctly equipped to handle, such as homelessness, drug overdoses, and mental health problems.
Why are we using police to manage homelessness or mental health issues? Why do we continue to send police to deal with these issues and criminalize people who need help rather than addressing the root causes of the problems? We know that safety is increased by people having access to food, housing, hospitals, schools, jobs, mental health services, and victim/survivor advocates.
Outreach workers, social workers, and community workers are better-trained to deal with drug addictions, outbursts by people with mental illnesses, resolving street and domestic disputes, monitoring the homeless population, and disciplining students at schools. They are also more likely to live in the communities they work with than police officers are, so they can build better relationships with the people they serve--unlike strangers with guns. Homeless people are arrested at a disproportionate rate and should not be arrested for an issue beyond their control. A social worker should be called to help them get into a shelter rather than a police officer who would just throw them in a cell. Homelessness and the other issues I have brought up cannot be solved by putting people in jail.
Police officers have even agreed that their role in society is beyond the scope of what it should be. Former commissioner and chief William Bratton said, "After 9/11, police departments, particularly in large cities, are expected to commit resources to preventing terrorism. We are expected now to deal with cyber crime and the opioid crisis. Police are being expected to be better trained to deal with emotionally disturbed people on the street. We are asking police officers in the 21st century to be almost doctors."
Defunding the police means taking funds they would use for these quality-of-life issues and funding community-led programs that would address poverty, inadequate housing, and lacks in education. It means investing in resources that these communities desperately need. This will significantly help communities and police forces alike because members of the communities will be able to receive the care/intervention they need without being criminalized, and police officers will be free to deal with other calls. More police could be working in community centers and mentoring teenagers instead of working in prisons, but jobs like that don't currently exist for officers. Let's create them.
We need services that focus on getting people help long before they overdose on drugs or have potentially dangerous mental health breaks or have to live on the streets. Police can deal with violent crime and leave the rest to health professionals and victim advocates.
Justice should have a foundation in lifting people up and building healthy communities and relationships, not in punishment and criminalization.
Why are we using police to manage homelessness or mental health issues? Why do we continue to send police to deal with these issues and criminalize people who need help rather than addressing the root causes of the problems? We know that safety is increased by people having access to food, housing, hospitals, schools, jobs, mental health services, and victim/survivor advocates.
Outreach workers, social workers, and community workers are better-trained to deal with drug addictions, outbursts by people with mental illnesses, resolving street and domestic disputes, monitoring the homeless population, and disciplining students at schools. They are also more likely to live in the communities they work with than police officers are, so they can build better relationships with the people they serve--unlike strangers with guns. Homeless people are arrested at a disproportionate rate and should not be arrested for an issue beyond their control. A social worker should be called to help them get into a shelter rather than a police officer who would just throw them in a cell. Homelessness and the other issues I have brought up cannot be solved by putting people in jail.
Police officers have even agreed that their role in society is beyond the scope of what it should be. Former commissioner and chief William Bratton said, "After 9/11, police departments, particularly in large cities, are expected to commit resources to preventing terrorism. We are expected now to deal with cyber crime and the opioid crisis. Police are being expected to be better trained to deal with emotionally disturbed people on the street. We are asking police officers in the 21st century to be almost doctors."
Defunding the police means taking funds they would use for these quality-of-life issues and funding community-led programs that would address poverty, inadequate housing, and lacks in education. It means investing in resources that these communities desperately need. This will significantly help communities and police forces alike because members of the communities will be able to receive the care/intervention they need without being criminalized, and police officers will be free to deal with other calls. More police could be working in community centers and mentoring teenagers instead of working in prisons, but jobs like that don't currently exist for officers. Let's create them.
We need services that focus on getting people help long before they overdose on drugs or have potentially dangerous mental health breaks or have to live on the streets. Police can deal with violent crime and leave the rest to health professionals and victim advocates.
Justice should have a foundation in lifting people up and building healthy communities and relationships, not in punishment and criminalization.
2. Crime would most likely decrease after defunding
There is a misconception that defunding the police will lead to an increase in crime. I assume this is based on another misconception, the one that "defunding" equals firing all officers. If you have this mindset, it is, of course, natural to be worried about wannabe Jokers running rampant. But, like I said, these are misconceptions.
If we divert funding from police departments and invest in serving communities, crime would be significantly deterred because we'd be addressing issues that cause crime to begin with. As I mentioned in the first section, societal problems such as homelessness, poverty, poor education, and lacks in mental health services are the driving forces of crime. Shifting money away from police and toward services that meet these needs will lead to a lower crime rate.
For example, someone from a lower socioeconomic background will not feel the need to rob banks if poverty is addressed early on in their life. The Obama White House's Council of Economic Advisers found in 2016 that "a 10 percent increase in wages for non-college educated men results in approximately a 10 to 20 percent reduction in crime rates."
About 30% of robberies and less than 15% of burglaries and car thefts actually result in arrests, according to an FBI database. This shows that, despite budget increases within police departments, they continue to have have extremely low crime solving rates. Minneapolis police only solved 56% of cases that involved people being killed in 2019. That is barely above half; we can't pretend like it's a good amount. There are 44% of people wondering who killed their family members. In 2019, Baltimore recorded around 347 homicides and only 32% were cleared. If police departments were defunded, maybe they'd focus on actual criminal activity rather than issuing so many parking tickets or wandering around looking for homeless people to lock up.
Something else I've been seeing a lot is, "what's going to happen when you get raped? Who will stop rape? Who are you gonna call?" Well, first of all, the police already do not "stop" or prevent crimes from occurring, they simply react to crimes after the fact, especially in the case of sexual assault. The only people who can "stop" rape from occurring are the potential perpetrators. Second, most rapists never go to trial and if they do, they're often let off the hook immediately. Look up Brock Turner. Third, police officers commit sexual assault themselves. In 2010, it was found that sexual misconduct was the second most frequently reported among police complaints. In 2015, The Buffalo News found that every five days, an officer was caught for their sexual misconduct. Every five days! Look up Daniel Holtzclaw, who was actually sentenced, but abused his power as an officer to rape a dozen women and a teenage girl. Fourth, thousands upon thousands of rape kits (some several years to decades old) are sitting in police storage rooms, untested! These are all reasons why about two thirds of sexual assault victims ever report it.
Who are we supposed to call when we can't trust the "only" people available?
Who do we call if responders are often perpetrators themselves?
Who do we report assault to when we are not believed over half the time?
How do we get justice when all we are given are unsatisfactory responses?
If we divert funding from police departments and invest in serving communities, crime would be significantly deterred because we'd be addressing issues that cause crime to begin with. As I mentioned in the first section, societal problems such as homelessness, poverty, poor education, and lacks in mental health services are the driving forces of crime. Shifting money away from police and toward services that meet these needs will lead to a lower crime rate.
For example, someone from a lower socioeconomic background will not feel the need to rob banks if poverty is addressed early on in their life. The Obama White House's Council of Economic Advisers found in 2016 that "a 10 percent increase in wages for non-college educated men results in approximately a 10 to 20 percent reduction in crime rates."
About 30% of robberies and less than 15% of burglaries and car thefts actually result in arrests, according to an FBI database. This shows that, despite budget increases within police departments, they continue to have have extremely low crime solving rates. Minneapolis police only solved 56% of cases that involved people being killed in 2019. That is barely above half; we can't pretend like it's a good amount. There are 44% of people wondering who killed their family members. In 2019, Baltimore recorded around 347 homicides and only 32% were cleared. If police departments were defunded, maybe they'd focus on actual criminal activity rather than issuing so many parking tickets or wandering around looking for homeless people to lock up.
Something else I've been seeing a lot is, "what's going to happen when you get raped? Who will stop rape? Who are you gonna call?" Well, first of all, the police already do not "stop" or prevent crimes from occurring, they simply react to crimes after the fact, especially in the case of sexual assault. The only people who can "stop" rape from occurring are the potential perpetrators. Second, most rapists never go to trial and if they do, they're often let off the hook immediately. Look up Brock Turner. Third, police officers commit sexual assault themselves. In 2010, it was found that sexual misconduct was the second most frequently reported among police complaints. In 2015, The Buffalo News found that every five days, an officer was caught for their sexual misconduct. Every five days! Look up Daniel Holtzclaw, who was actually sentenced, but abused his power as an officer to rape a dozen women and a teenage girl. Fourth, thousands upon thousands of rape kits (some several years to decades old) are sitting in police storage rooms, untested! These are all reasons why about two thirds of sexual assault victims ever report it.
Who are we supposed to call when we can't trust the "only" people available?
Who do we call if responders are often perpetrators themselves?
Who do we report assault to when we are not believed over half the time?
How do we get justice when all we are given are unsatisfactory responses?
3. Reform has proven to be ineffective
Before we can transform the system of policing that we have now, we have to abolish it. Reform is not enough. An increase in body camera usage and extra training have only shown us the police brutality and misconduct that continues to happen despite these reform measures. The sheer amount of violent crimes (rape, murder, etc.) that remain unsolved is proof that bigger budgets have done absolutely nothing positive for communities that police are supposed to "protect."
The common argument used in favor of reform is that more rules for officers will mean less violence and less misconduct. Police officers break rules all the time and do not care. They are shown on camera, time and time again, shoving elderly people to the ground, injuring journalists, shooting directly at unarmed people, macing children, and slashing tires. Former Officer Daniel Holtzclaw raped women because his mindset was that no one would believe their word over his. The officer who killed Eric Gardner waved to a camera filming him. More rules clearly have no impact on people who think they are untouchable and can get away with literally anything.
Police reform initiatives have been wildly expensive and recent events, such as Breonna Taylor's and George Floyd's deaths, signal the failure of them. While reform measures such as body cameras, diversity and bias training, mindfulness exercises, and the practice of "racial reconciliation" sound amazing and are capable of working in some capacity, police leaders have continually refused to actually implement them. When civilian review boards brought up complaints and recommended disciplinary actions, police chiefs would refuse to inflict them, rendering review boards weak and essentially useless. Since 2012, members of the Minneapolis public have filed over 2,600 misconduct complaints. Only 12 of those resulted in an officer being disciplined, with the most severe punishment being a 40-hour suspension. This perfectly leads into my next point.
The common argument used in favor of reform is that more rules for officers will mean less violence and less misconduct. Police officers break rules all the time and do not care. They are shown on camera, time and time again, shoving elderly people to the ground, injuring journalists, shooting directly at unarmed people, macing children, and slashing tires. Former Officer Daniel Holtzclaw raped women because his mindset was that no one would believe their word over his. The officer who killed Eric Gardner waved to a camera filming him. More rules clearly have no impact on people who think they are untouchable and can get away with literally anything.
Police reform initiatives have been wildly expensive and recent events, such as Breonna Taylor's and George Floyd's deaths, signal the failure of them. While reform measures such as body cameras, diversity and bias training, mindfulness exercises, and the practice of "racial reconciliation" sound amazing and are capable of working in some capacity, police leaders have continually refused to actually implement them. When civilian review boards brought up complaints and recommended disciplinary actions, police chiefs would refuse to inflict them, rendering review boards weak and essentially useless. Since 2012, members of the Minneapolis public have filed over 2,600 misconduct complaints. Only 12 of those resulted in an officer being disciplined, with the most severe punishment being a 40-hour suspension. This perfectly leads into my next point.
4. Currently, there is no accountability among police
I suggest reading the Medium article "Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop" written by A. Cab to get some insights into police attitudes and the current culture of policing. I've pulled some quotes from it that really stuck out to me:
In my police academy class, we had a clique of around six trainees who routinely bullied and harassed other students: intentionally scuffing another trainee’s shoes to get them in trouble during inspection, sexually harassing female trainees, cracking racist jokes, and so on. Every quarter, we were to write anonymous evaluations of our squadmates. I wrote scathing accounts of their behavior, thinking I was helping keep bad apples out of law enforcement and believing I would be protected. Instead, the academy staff read my complaints to them out loud and outed me to them and never punished them, causing me to get harassed for the rest of my academy class. That’s how I learned that even police leadership hates rats. That’s why no one is “changing things from the inside.” They can’t, the structure won’t allow it.
I knew officers who kept a little baggie of whatever or maybe a pocket knife that was a little too big in their war bags (yeah, we called our dufflebags “war bags”…). Did I ever tell anybody about it? No I did not. Did I ever confess my suspicions when cocaine suddenly showed up in a gang member’s jacket? No I did not.
We were all in it together. I knew cops that pulled women over to flirt with them. I knew cops who would pepper spray sleeping bags so that homeless people would have to throw them away. I knew cops that intentionally provoked anger in suspects so they could claim they were assaulted. I was particularly good at winding people up verbally until they lashed out so I could fight them. Nobody spoke out. Nobody stood up. Nobody betrayed the code. None of us protected the people (you) from bad cops.
This is why “All cops are bastards”...Because even if they wouldn’t Do The Thing themselves, they will almost never rat out another officer who Does The Thing, much less stop it from happening...
Police crime is not isolated to certain areas of the country and it is not rare. Out of 6,596 officers in the Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database (which is currently the only public effort that tracks police crimes and arrests,) 802 of them were arrested more than once. Arrests do not equal convictions and they do not equal firings, either, apparently. Police officers have this mindset that no matter what one of them does, no matter how illegal or unethical it is, they will protect each other. American law enforcement is riddled with this dangerous attitude.
Cops continue to commit crimes and do not receive proper punishments. Law enforcement officers are continually arrested for dealing drugs, planting drugs (or other evidence,) drunk driving, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc. These criminal acts severely undermine the work of law-abiding, professional officers, as well as reduce public trust in the authority, legitimacy, and effectiveness of law enforcement in general. Cops who are fired often go on to be reinstated in the same department, or they go on to work for other departments, still with zero accountability. If there were any accountability, these officers would not be able to be hired anywhere else, ever again. It should be no different than teachers and doctors who get their licenses revoked when they mess up. There should be little to no room for error in law enforcement, as well.
On-duty police officers broke into Chicago Representative Bobby Rush's campaign office during recent protests and looting. 13 officers were caught on security tapes lounging around the office, napping, and fixing themselves Rep. Rush's popcorn and coffee. They did all this as buildings were being set on fire. These officers were not "protecting" the city, they were not "serving" the community. This behavior reflects their leadership (or lack thereof.) Embarrassing.
This section could go on forever, as there are many examples of the lack of accountability within police departments, but I will end on a few more. The officer who killed Eric Gardner in a choke-hold stayed on the force for five more years afterward. Officer Chauvin, who killed George Floyd, faced at least 17 misconduct complaints and was named in a brutality lawsuit, but did not receive any form of discipline that derailed his career. Perhaps if the 17 complaints had actually been enough to get Chauvin fired, George Floyd would still be alive today. The 17 complaints should have been enough.
In addition, Officer Thao, another involved in George Floyd's murder, faced six misconduct complaints in his career. One lawsuit against him involved Thao approaching Lamar Ferguson, a 26 year old Black man, and falsely stating that a warrant was out for the man's arrest in 2014. Ferguson told Thao he had no information to tell the police. Thao handcuffed Ferguson, threw him to the ground, and began hitting him. The city settled the case for $25,000 and Thao got to keep his job up until this year, after more of his actions resulted in George Floyd's death. He should have been held accountable for his gross misconduct six years ago. Before then, even.
Sociologist Alex S. Vitale says:
We need to talk about accountability at both the interpersonal level and institutional level. Obviously these people should not be police officers, and they have to be put in a situation where they are taking steps to repair some of the harms in ways that actually build up the community. But there also has to be institutional responsibility and accountability, both for the police and the political leadership of the city. So that means a political intervention. And I think the most effective way to do this in the short term is for these budget interventions to say, “We’re going to take away the scope of your power and we’re going to make a demand that will directly result in new resources for our communities.”
In my police academy class, we had a clique of around six trainees who routinely bullied and harassed other students: intentionally scuffing another trainee’s shoes to get them in trouble during inspection, sexually harassing female trainees, cracking racist jokes, and so on. Every quarter, we were to write anonymous evaluations of our squadmates. I wrote scathing accounts of their behavior, thinking I was helping keep bad apples out of law enforcement and believing I would be protected. Instead, the academy staff read my complaints to them out loud and outed me to them and never punished them, causing me to get harassed for the rest of my academy class. That’s how I learned that even police leadership hates rats. That’s why no one is “changing things from the inside.” They can’t, the structure won’t allow it.
I knew officers who kept a little baggie of whatever or maybe a pocket knife that was a little too big in their war bags (yeah, we called our dufflebags “war bags”…). Did I ever tell anybody about it? No I did not. Did I ever confess my suspicions when cocaine suddenly showed up in a gang member’s jacket? No I did not.
We were all in it together. I knew cops that pulled women over to flirt with them. I knew cops who would pepper spray sleeping bags so that homeless people would have to throw them away. I knew cops that intentionally provoked anger in suspects so they could claim they were assaulted. I was particularly good at winding people up verbally until they lashed out so I could fight them. Nobody spoke out. Nobody stood up. Nobody betrayed the code. None of us protected the people (you) from bad cops.
This is why “All cops are bastards”...Because even if they wouldn’t Do The Thing themselves, they will almost never rat out another officer who Does The Thing, much less stop it from happening...
Police crime is not isolated to certain areas of the country and it is not rare. Out of 6,596 officers in the Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database (which is currently the only public effort that tracks police crimes and arrests,) 802 of them were arrested more than once. Arrests do not equal convictions and they do not equal firings, either, apparently. Police officers have this mindset that no matter what one of them does, no matter how illegal or unethical it is, they will protect each other. American law enforcement is riddled with this dangerous attitude.
Cops continue to commit crimes and do not receive proper punishments. Law enforcement officers are continually arrested for dealing drugs, planting drugs (or other evidence,) drunk driving, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc. These criminal acts severely undermine the work of law-abiding, professional officers, as well as reduce public trust in the authority, legitimacy, and effectiveness of law enforcement in general. Cops who are fired often go on to be reinstated in the same department, or they go on to work for other departments, still with zero accountability. If there were any accountability, these officers would not be able to be hired anywhere else, ever again. It should be no different than teachers and doctors who get their licenses revoked when they mess up. There should be little to no room for error in law enforcement, as well.
On-duty police officers broke into Chicago Representative Bobby Rush's campaign office during recent protests and looting. 13 officers were caught on security tapes lounging around the office, napping, and fixing themselves Rep. Rush's popcorn and coffee. They did all this as buildings were being set on fire. These officers were not "protecting" the city, they were not "serving" the community. This behavior reflects their leadership (or lack thereof.) Embarrassing.
This section could go on forever, as there are many examples of the lack of accountability within police departments, but I will end on a few more. The officer who killed Eric Gardner in a choke-hold stayed on the force for five more years afterward. Officer Chauvin, who killed George Floyd, faced at least 17 misconduct complaints and was named in a brutality lawsuit, but did not receive any form of discipline that derailed his career. Perhaps if the 17 complaints had actually been enough to get Chauvin fired, George Floyd would still be alive today. The 17 complaints should have been enough.
In addition, Officer Thao, another involved in George Floyd's murder, faced six misconduct complaints in his career. One lawsuit against him involved Thao approaching Lamar Ferguson, a 26 year old Black man, and falsely stating that a warrant was out for the man's arrest in 2014. Ferguson told Thao he had no information to tell the police. Thao handcuffed Ferguson, threw him to the ground, and began hitting him. The city settled the case for $25,000 and Thao got to keep his job up until this year, after more of his actions resulted in George Floyd's death. He should have been held accountable for his gross misconduct six years ago. Before then, even.
Sociologist Alex S. Vitale says:
We need to talk about accountability at both the interpersonal level and institutional level. Obviously these people should not be police officers, and they have to be put in a situation where they are taking steps to repair some of the harms in ways that actually build up the community. But there also has to be institutional responsibility and accountability, both for the police and the political leadership of the city. So that means a political intervention. And I think the most effective way to do this in the short term is for these budget interventions to say, “We’re going to take away the scope of your power and we’re going to make a demand that will directly result in new resources for our communities.”
5. Police forces were not organized to "protect" all people
From the beginning of policing in America, the phrase "protect and serve" wasn't inclusive. It really only applied to wealthy white people. Police forces were created to track down slaves who escaped from the South--"slave patrols." After the abolition of slavery, police officers violently enforced Jim Crow laws for over 70 years. Past the Jim Crow era, we still have redlining, gentrification, disenfranchisement, and police brutality. The current policing system was never built to "protect and serve" Blacks or any people of color. It was created on the very basis of criminalizing them.
Black Americans have always lived in fear of the police, and they've had valid reasons to. A federal database, the National Violent Death Reporting System, showed in 2016 that the fatality rate (for victims of lethal police force) among Black people was 2.8 times higher than among white people. Police shoot unarmed citizens, especially Black people, at high rates. Police have attacked Blacks in the streets and in their own homes, as well as killed them for the smallest infractions. Black neighborhoods are policed more than others. Police were sent to suppress Civil Rights Movement protests by blasting people with hoses and siccing dogs on them. Police still gear up in military-grade equipment to use against American citizens for speaking out against the very reasons that allow officers to do so.
The "War on Drugs" was launched by the Nixon Administration in 1971 to criminalize Black people. John Ehrlichman, a top advisor to Nixon, said, We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
The system has never been equal or equitable. It's a sponge that is so soaked with racism and injustice that it is incapable of absorbing any positive change at this point in time. The sponge is not keeping people safe, but putting them in danger. We must wring it out entirely for change to be possible.
For a free course on the history of policing and police brutality, go to Communities United Against Police Brutality and click on "Police Brutality 101." It's very informative!
Black Americans have always lived in fear of the police, and they've had valid reasons to. A federal database, the National Violent Death Reporting System, showed in 2016 that the fatality rate (for victims of lethal police force) among Black people was 2.8 times higher than among white people. Police shoot unarmed citizens, especially Black people, at high rates. Police have attacked Blacks in the streets and in their own homes, as well as killed them for the smallest infractions. Black neighborhoods are policed more than others. Police were sent to suppress Civil Rights Movement protests by blasting people with hoses and siccing dogs on them. Police still gear up in military-grade equipment to use against American citizens for speaking out against the very reasons that allow officers to do so.
The "War on Drugs" was launched by the Nixon Administration in 1971 to criminalize Black people. John Ehrlichman, a top advisor to Nixon, said, We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
The system has never been equal or equitable. It's a sponge that is so soaked with racism and injustice that it is incapable of absorbing any positive change at this point in time. The sponge is not keeping people safe, but putting them in danger. We must wring it out entirely for change to be possible.
For a free course on the history of policing and police brutality, go to Communities United Against Police Brutality and click on "Police Brutality 101." It's very informative!
6. Alternatives to policing already exist and help communities thrive
Everyone opposing defunding doesn't seem to know that some great alternatives are already in effect in communities across the country. There are crisis-intervention teams (CIT) led by civilians and composed of highly-trained social workers, nurses, doctors, and psychiatrists that respond to incidents involving people experiencing mental health crises. These CITs minimize police interactions with people they are not trained to deal with. Only mental health responders, such as an EMT and de-escalator pairing, should be present during someone's mental health crisis.
Community-based sexual assault centers and shelters also give non-police aid to survivors. They assist immediately after incidents, keep all identities secret since they work in anonymity, provide long-term support, and provide advocacy beyond legal action. Traditional police work does not do these things.
Detroit and Los Angeles are two cities that have unarmed but trained citizens patrolling neighborhoods in order to curb violence where it begins. In other cities, like Brooklyn, there are patrols of local women who organize to reduce cat-calling, domestic violence, and gang murders. These successful, unarmed citizen patrol groups show that some of the most violent neighborhoods respond better to peaceful intervention than to militarized police force.
Other mobile community-based programs such as Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) in Eugene, Oregon address disturbances that do not involve crime. Similar programs exist in Portland, Oakland, and Denver, too. These programs eliminate the need for police in responding to mental health crises, people experiencing homelessness, and those with substance abuse issues. Instead of police, a team of a mental health worker and a medic are dispatched for calls regarding potential overdoses or welfare checks. Less than 1% of the calls that CAHOOTS responds to end up needing police assistance because the program's workers go through hours of vigorous training in the areas of trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction.
These alternatives not only prevent and reduce violent police encounters, but also reduce the amount of arrest-release-repeat cycles that are not conducive to societal change and communal growth or improvement. We need more programs like these in every city!
Prisons are full of mentally ill people, homeless people, and other non-violent people who do not need or deserve to be there. We need more mental health services, substance abuse counseling centers, domestic violence centers, shelters, and community-based anti-violence initiatives. This involves taking police funds and relocating them into these necessary alternatives so each issue can be properly dealt with.
Community-based sexual assault centers and shelters also give non-police aid to survivors. They assist immediately after incidents, keep all identities secret since they work in anonymity, provide long-term support, and provide advocacy beyond legal action. Traditional police work does not do these things.
Detroit and Los Angeles are two cities that have unarmed but trained citizens patrolling neighborhoods in order to curb violence where it begins. In other cities, like Brooklyn, there are patrols of local women who organize to reduce cat-calling, domestic violence, and gang murders. These successful, unarmed citizen patrol groups show that some of the most violent neighborhoods respond better to peaceful intervention than to militarized police force.
Other mobile community-based programs such as Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) in Eugene, Oregon address disturbances that do not involve crime. Similar programs exist in Portland, Oakland, and Denver, too. These programs eliminate the need for police in responding to mental health crises, people experiencing homelessness, and those with substance abuse issues. Instead of police, a team of a mental health worker and a medic are dispatched for calls regarding potential overdoses or welfare checks. Less than 1% of the calls that CAHOOTS responds to end up needing police assistance because the program's workers go through hours of vigorous training in the areas of trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction.
These alternatives not only prevent and reduce violent police encounters, but also reduce the amount of arrest-release-repeat cycles that are not conducive to societal change and communal growth or improvement. We need more programs like these in every city!
Prisons are full of mentally ill people, homeless people, and other non-violent people who do not need or deserve to be there. We need more mental health services, substance abuse counseling centers, domestic violence centers, shelters, and community-based anti-violence initiatives. This involves taking police funds and relocating them into these necessary alternatives so each issue can be properly dealt with.
If you made it to the end, thank you for reading!
I hope this post brings many insights to why we all need to advocate for the defunding of police. I also hope that those who at first glance thought it was a radical idea have come to realize it is not radical at all.
We do not and should not have to rely on police and prisons to solve all societal issues.
Defunding the police is a necessary and beneficial advancement for our society.
I hope this post brings many insights to why we all need to advocate for the defunding of police. I also hope that those who at first glance thought it was a radical idea have come to realize it is not radical at all.
We do not and should not have to rely on police and prisons to solve all societal issues.
Defunding the police is a necessary and beneficial advancement for our society.