It’s challenging to understand where the argument to defund the police comes from. This piece is devoted to carefully understanding those arguments and offering my unique perspective on whether or not the police should be defunded.
The Pro-Defunding Narrative
The death of George Floyd sparked outrage among black communities across the country. Before that, activist movements had already started the call to address what is now clear evidence of systemic discrimination against a community of American citizens. Among the demands these activists are calling out is to defund the police.
For supporters of defunding the police, the logic is simple.
While citizens have been taught that the role of law enforcement is to safeguard the public, the reality is that policing has brought more terror than safety to people of color. For pro-defund-the-police activists, the deaths of George Floyd, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Breonna Taylor, and Michael Brown, among others, are not anomalies but evidence of a racist, oppressive policing system. As a result, this biased aspect of the American justice system needs to have its funds redirected for better purposes such as community development (which is believed will tackle inequalities at the grassroots level).
That is the pro-defunding narrative.
How Far Should Defunding the Police Go?
The debates around defunding the police have also raised questions about how much defunding is enough. Absolute defunding or partial defunding and reform.
Some reports say banning the police is a common misconception of defunding. The same reports also acknowledge that some defund-the-police activist groups call for police to be dismantled across the country. However, defunding the police should be associated more with a partial defunding and reform of the police force than with banning the police entirely.
This perspective of partial defunding also brings me to consider an alternative to the pro-defunding activist narrative.
The Not-So-Anti-Defunding Narrative
This perspective acknowledges that the pro-defunding activists have a point. However, it seeks to make specific observations that pro-defunding activists may have skipped and which anti-defunding supporters take to an extreme.
There has to be law and order in our society; otherwise, it’ll be complete chaos.
You think about this statement, and the first thing you may identify is that the answer is not as simple as saying, take away parts of police funding or don’t take away police funding.
So, Systemic Racism Exists in the Police Force…
Taking away parts of police funding and putting it into community development might seem a great way to address racism. But, look closer, and you’ll find that it may only lead to underpaid, unmotivated staff in the police force. Not very good for the public either. Sure, addressing crime at its root makes sense, which will inevitably help the system keep potential offenders from offending. But that’s a long-term plan.
And that does not immediately address the root cause of police response, does it?
Sensitivity Training is What’s Lacking in the Police Force
…and correcting that requires funding.
So, while calling for the police to be partially defunded, I also question how the necessary training, made possible with police reforms, can be implemented. The problem isn’t that the police have too much funding heading their way; it’s that the funding isn’t maximized for the benefit of every American citizen.
So, while the call is for defunding, it should really be for maximizing the funding that the police have to ensure that every American citizen is treated with dignity, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. If sensitivity training is absent in police training, it’ll be clear from the conduct of the police. When police funding is maximized transparently, with sensitivity training in place, the police force will be held accountable for discriminatory practices where they exist.
Maybe we need to start calling for “Maximize Police Funding” instead.
I hope this helps!