If you totally eliminated police entirely, across the entire US, this leaves just $354 per person in savings. Even if you multiply this by 10 by assuming that you will spend the savings disproportionately on the poorest 10% of the population, I find it extremely hard to imagine that $3,500 per year on the bottom 10% is enough to so fundamentally change society that all crime disappears and the now non-existent police are proved unnecessary.
What am I missing? Has anyone calling for “defunding the police” actually done the math here?
Sorry that is wrong. Police encounters are tracked by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India and the media. Most police don’t even carry guns in India.
Unless you can show me data, the claim that police shootings in India are higher than the US, on a per capita basis, is simply incorrect.
This thread, and other discussions like it, are a pretty good sign in my mind of how deeply rooted the core issue is, and how little many people understand that.
Which, of course, doesn’t make the politics any simpler; quite the opposite, though I’m a bit skeptical of how good a “recruiting tool” this is for Trump, especially in June (not that it’ll have zero effect, but I just don’t see this as an issue that’ll help put him over the top; but that’s just me).
Leave it to Trump to make it more complex than it should be as that is also his method: ‘lets those and others fight, I will look at how I will benefit from it’.
Do we still say “No Irish need apply”? Do we still have laws about asians owning real property? Are Italian Americans still stuck in a ghetto? Are "anti-catholic parties’ still mainstream?
Reform has happened.
That doesnt mean we dont have a long way to go.
And, so what are your suggestions for real reform?
I want to thank you, Jragon, for remaining calm and explaining this side of the debate. You are a better person than I.
I quoted this particular post because apparently this point just isnt getting thru to some people.
NOBODY, BUT NOBODY, is saying to just fire all the cops and then sit back and see what happens. And these are not new ideas that people are just making up in the heat of the moment. The restorative justice movement is thirty years old. and calls to defund the police and send that money to where it can be better used goes back at least to the civil rights movement of the 60’s.
Now, you may not think these are good ideas, but to dismiss them as the lunatic ravings of madmen who just want to destroy civilization and watch it burn only serves to inflame the rhetoric. and it paints you as someone with no understanding of the history and no sympathy for the pain and suffering that many have endured under the current system.
I dont know where all this will end. but I do know that it has begun and we are not going back to the way it was. Police depts all across this nation are already being (partially) defunded. Legislatures are writing up new accountability guidelines. And it has become a significant point of debate in most of the upcoming political campaigns, including that for President.
I think all the things you listed above were also done to black people, and in some ways have not improved to this very day, except by not being spoken out loud to the face. Again, why should they believe any significant effort will be taken on their behalf? MLK himself wrote about the white moderate who just counseled people like them to “wait.” If you think your race is being targeted for literal death, how long would you feel comfortable waiting?
As for suggestions, I don’t know. I’m not black, so I haven’t thought about it as long and as seriously as many of them have. There are lots of ideas out there, even within the police abolishment movement. I do seriously sympathize, though, with the thought that real significant reform just isn’t possible under the current power structures and system we have. The forces against it are pretty daunting.
Of course it could get worse. But I think the entire point of the abolitionists is that they feel they aren’t being protected by the police NOW, so what have they got to lose? And even then they do acknowledge that the powers that be could seize the opportunity to make things worse, but they do it anyway.
There are people who have completely lost faith in the ability of their leaders and fellow citizens to take seriously matters that are literal life and death to them. If you want to argue that they’re wrong to feel this way, and that they’re not as bad off as they think they are, I suppose you could. But I don’t see how police abolitionism, regardless of what I personally think of it, isn’t a rational and understandable reaction given the circumstances.
Police abolition is completely irrational. Those bank robbers, murderers, domestic abusers etc are not going to arrest themselves.
I do understand the frustrations out there, but reform is the best shot. Abolishing the police is overly idealistic claptrap that will be yesterday’s news by next year.
There may well be consequences, after all, there are still victims of the crime: the friends and family members of your spouse and her lover. If you worked with one of them, for instance, you may need to find another job. If you were drunk (say you went out to an office dinner) and had issues with alcohol you may be required to attend an alcohol rehabilitation or have your access to it limited. But yes, largely reparative measures such as counseling.
As Ms. Kaba states, murderers are actually the least likely class of criminals to reoffend. Killing someone fucks you up.
There are other preventative measures than fear as a deterrent. Hence all those social programs.
Well, you’re probably right that just cutting police funding alone won’t cover every single service. But part of the budget is covered under other plans - UHC would probably be entailed by the plan as part of the attempt to eliminate poverty, and there have been plenty of math-heavy proposals for that. Reappropriating property that’s been empty for years (e.g. the frat house in my town that’s been empty for 3 years and could house 20 people easily) and renovating+repurposing/redistributing it is likely cheaper in many cases than building public housing projects. Taxes on the wealthy would likely be needed.
And since basic necessities like food, medical care, and housing are part of the program at hand, even taxes on the middle class are possible since now there’s a floor on poverty, so losing money isn’t as big of a deal when you’re not at risk of being homeless or starving. Obviously raising taxes on the middle class is a tough sell, and I wouldn’t advocate for it unless it was clear that other measures weren’t sufficient, and I definitely wouldn’t even try it until we add those social services that put a floor on the damages of poverty.
Defunding the police would kickstart this, though, and the funds in the budget that are freed up would likely go more directly towards funding services by responders such as mental health workers and social workers and designing and paying for the new deescalation training they’d require, with leftovers going towards very modestly getting the other services moving before other funding is acquired (e.g. paying planners and advisory panels).
Mostly because their union protects them, and even if they get fired, they just find a job in another jurisdiction.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that the abolitionists’ entire point is that there is an entire race of people in this country who do NOT see the benefits police have on society, and that in fact their lives in general are worse off because of their existence. How is fighting that not rational?
And that brings me back to my previous question: why should the abolitionists believe that anyone will make any lasting significant changes, or even give a damn about them and their people in six months? My entire point is that I think they are more rational than most seem to believe. You want ‘em to shut up? Give them a reason to trust the system to change to do right by them, or else convince them that they’ve got this thing all wrong, that the justice system doesn’t target them unfairly because of the color of their skin, and they’re all heated up over nothing. My opinion: good luck with doing either.
Sorry, I have to clarify; are you saying that if a man murders his wife and her lover in a drunken rage, he shouldn’t be punished at all? He should just get anger management and/or alcohol counseling or something? Do I have that right? If not, please explain what other consequences the man should have to suffer, because right now your position seems morally obscene.
