Understanding Defunding the Police

Before I form an opinion on an issue, I like to have an understanding of what the sides of the issue are. This has been somewhat difficult with the question of “defunding the police” because this phrase means different things depending on who is saying it.

On the Black Lives Matter web site, it says “We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive.”

It does not explain what form that defunding should take. In that vague description, I have seen many people fill in their own details for their own agendas. This includes people on the Left who would like to expand the definition of Defund to a more radical level of social change, and it includes people on the Right who would like to paint the Defund movement as anarchists who will bring about lawless chaos.

The purpose of this article is to clarify for people who are not following the story closely the various meanings this phrase has for the people who support it. I am putting together information I have found in my research that I would have found helpful, and I hope you do as well. I am not attempting to sway your opinion to support or oppose any of these views, but simply to help define a language to discuss it in. If you feel that anything I am sharing is inaccurate, I encourage you to reach out to me so I can make corrections.

There is a continuum of opinions, as with most things, but I believe it can be effectively divided into three groups: Overhaul, Defund, and Abolish.

Overhaul the Police

At the most conservative end of the spectrum are those who want to see reform spread more broadly. Better training, improved use of force guidelines, firing and prosecuting officers who act inappropriately, removal of officers who show racist behavior or speech, reform of police unions.

People in this camp want to take what the best police departments are doing and spread those reforms to all departments. They do not want fundamental change, and believe that these reforms can make the difference.

Defund the Police

This is the predominant viewpoint within the movement, although there are great variations in the details of what people would like to see. This is partly due to the fact that the movement is spread across every city and town in America, and every place has different problems, challenges, and situations.

This group sees the problem as the police having too much funding which is crowding out other services and creating a downward spiral effect. Without enough social services, the underlying issues that cause poverty and crime, such as poor education, unstable families, drugs, despair, etc, are not addressed. The police are asked to take on roles that are beyond their capabilities, and these additional contacts between police and citizens lead to violent encounters when a cop with a gun shows up to a situation that needed a social worker or a drug rehab councilor.

The concept is to divert funding from police to other programs, such as having unarmed social workers show up to some calls rather than armed police, as San Francisco has just announced they will be doing.

The police will still be there to handle violent crimes, investigate break-ins, rapes, robberies, muggings, and all the things you expect police to do.

Abolish the Police

The most radical group, which appears to comprise the smallest group advocating for change, are those that want to get rid of police altogether. Their viewpoint is explained on a web site called For a World Without Police.

The web site suggests that police cannot be reformed “Historically, police forces were created to protect the property of businesses and the wealthy and enforce white supremacy.”

They believe that police are designed to enforce and intrinsically racist and oppressive system of capitalism. They advocate rethinking the definition of crime, the restructuring of society, and new ways of keeping order, including communities “policing” themselves, as was done in many communities prior to two hundred years ago.

Most people advocate defunding do not advocate this extreme view, but those who oppose the defunding will attempt to use the existence of this movement to show that the Defund movement wants to eliminate police and allow anarchy.

To Consider

Some interesting points have been raised in this debate which should be considered.

What is crime? If you steal a $1 pack of gum from a store, you can be arrested, cuffed, and charged. If an employer steals $1,000,000 of wages from their employees, they may be ordered to pay the amount they stole but face no other punishment.

If you kill a man with a gun, you’ll be arrested and go to jail. If a company poisons a city water supply, they’ll pay fines but likely no jail time.

The police enforce some kinds of crimes (murder, rape, theft, assault) but not others (wage theft, pollution, online bullying, fraud). When you consider why they address some crime but not other, it is interesting to consider who the crime effects, who perpetrates it, and how difficult it is to investigate.

Just some points to ponder.

This article aggregates information that I have been able to gather regarding a movement that has limited publicly available resources to explain itself to the general public. If you are aware of sites that I should be linking to of have details that you feel I have gotten wrong, I encourage you to reach out with your suggested. Email me a michael@thecrisiscontrolgroup.com.