3 ms·

The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place. I agree it’s bad branding, but it’s pretty o

The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place. I agree it’s bad branding, but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. More police is not always the answer to more crime, sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place “Defund” advocates distinguish themselves from “reform” advocates because they see the police reform movement as having made the problem worse by sucking money out of other local services into police budgets in the name of supporting reforms (leading to police role expansion as there are fewer other tools to handle local issues.) They literally see “police reform” as a major source of current problems, not the solution. (They can accurately be described as local government reform activists, but the central specific reform they support is reducing the resources and role of the local centralized paramilitary law enforcement entities, and distributing both resources and responsibilities elsewhere.)
mixedCase 5y ago
> sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead Such as? The US invests an absurd amount of money into education and a sizable amount on welfare. Both of which also seemingly suffer from efficiency issues. Reform is really the only option when money stops being efficient. Over time, systems accumulate crusts of leeches who live off the system offering little in return, stealing resources from others who are more honest, by merely knowing what the weaknesses of the system are. It's at that point where reviewing and heavily reforming your rules until these people are screaming bloody murder becomes the only fix.
autoexec 5y ago
> but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. I disagree. While we can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to get better, we're going to have to invest in police far more than we have done to get real change. No one wants to live somewhere where police don't have the funds to do their job correctly. We all just want police to do their jobs correctly. That requires oversight and that requires funding. We have to buy body cams for every officer and build/maintain the backend systems to support them, we have to pay for better training in deescalation tactics, we have to pay for better tracking of incidents and reporting, we have to pay for new hires to replace problem officers, we have to pay for independent oversight boards and community programs. There is a lot of work to do and all of it is going to require extensive funding. Accountability is the key to reformation, not defunding. That means removing the police's ability to police themselves (something they've failed at) and having independent review boards handle minor issues while district attorneys and judges throw police behind bars for major ones. Changes are needed throughout the justice system to make this happen. You have to invest in something to repair it, not starve it. Some reforms, like investing in mental health services, restricting civil asset forfeiture, and demilitarization will mean that some departments can get by with fewer officers and might shrink their budgets, but I suspect we'll just be spending much of what we save on oversight and training.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The thing is, for most police reform activists, defunding the police is the key method by which reform takes place “Defund” advocates distinguish themselves from “reform” advocates because they see the police reform movement as having made the problem worse by sucking money out of other local services into police budgets in the name of supporting reforms (leading to police role expansion as there are fewer other tools to handle local issues.) They literally see “police reform” as a major source of current problems, not the solution. (They can accurately be described as local government reform activists, but the central specific reform they support is reducing the resources and role of the local centralized paramilitary law enforcement entities, and distributing both resources and responsibilities elsewhere.)

mixedCase 5y ago

> sometimes it makes more sense to fund other civil services instead Such as? The US invests an absurd amount of money into education and a sizable amount on welfare. Both of which also seemingly suffer from efficiency issues. Reform is really the only option when money stops being efficient. Over time, systems accumulate crusts of leeches who live off the system offering little in return, stealing resources from others who are more honest, by merely knowing what the weaknesses of the system are. It's at that point where reviewing and heavily reforming your rules until these people are screaming bloody murder becomes the only fix.

autoexec 5y ago

> but it’s pretty obvious we won’t see substantial police reform unless we defund them. I disagree. While we can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to get better, we're going to have to invest in police far more than we have done to get real change. No one wants to live somewhere where police don't have the funds to do their job correctly. We all just want police to do their jobs correctly. That requires oversight and that requires funding. We have to buy body cams for every officer and build/maintain the backend systems to support them, we have to pay for better training in deescalation tactics, we have to pay for better tracking of incidents and reporting, we have to pay for new hires to replace problem officers, we have to pay for independent oversight boards and community programs. There is a lot of work to do and all of it is going to require extensive funding. Accountability is the key to reformation, not defunding. That means removing the police's ability to police themselves (something they've failed at) and having independent review boards handle minor issues while district attorneys and judges throw police behind bars for major ones. Changes are needed throughout the justice system to make this happen. You have to invest in something to repair it, not starve it. Some reforms, like investing in mental health services, restricting civil asset forfeiture, and demilitarization will mean that some departments can get by with fewer officers and might shrink their budgets, but I suspect we'll just be spending much of what we save on oversight and training.