The idea of defunding the police has always been stupid. Give them resources and education to fight crime and work where they are most effective, let others do work which is easier or requires more sensitivity when possible, give the public confidence in the police by making them genuinely accountable for excesses and make them obey the law and constitution, while recognizing the difficulties and dangers of the profession and how it might be distorted in the press.
Not necessarily to the people who have been brutalized and tormented by the police.
Okay, so what’s stopping us from doing that? Why, instead of doing that, are we focussing on insulting some people who were fed up with the harassment they were expected to live under and said something back?
I understand, doing something about the police acting as violent gangs roaming the streets is hard. It’s much easier to dismiss those who bring up the problem as being stupid.
I said “defunding the police” is stupid. I have nothing but sympathy for innocent people who suffer at the hands of police flagrantly disobeying their own regulations and the law, or gaslighting the public. I can understand all sides of this argument, and insulted no one with my logical approach. People are entitled to their opinions, and not all ideas are good.
However, the police are simply a necessary and vital service. I have no problem with reforms that will allow police to do a better job. This includes proper resources, pay, accountability, oversight and being able to hire people with the appropriate skills, education and personalities.
I lol’d.
Aren’t the Sith basically trying to take over the universe?
Why not instead give resources and education to fight crime, to some group that has fighting crime as their job? Because that’s not the police’s job. Most folks think that’s their job, and that’s the job they support the police doing, but whenever the police fail to do so, they’re always quick to point out that it’s not their job (just what is their job is never made clear).
At the moment in New York they are trying to cut the budget for public libraries. This is what is at stake.
How much are the budget cuts we are talking about?
$36.2 million.
Only a fraction of the NYPD overtime overruns. Only a tiny fraction of the NYPD budgeted allocation for overtime.
They want to cut $36.2 million from the library budget. Yet the NYPD budgets 374 million for overtime. And in the year to date they have already spent $472 million on overtime, $98 million over budget.
And the kicker?
Its all a scam.
“Collars for dollars.”
Collars For Dollars: An Unconstitutional Police Practice? - Above the Law)
How much did the NYPD pay for police misconduct last year?
$121 million dollars. The most in 5 years. Over 3 times as much as they are cutting from the library budget.
And it isn’t just the NYPD.
Show me any major police organization in the US and I’ll be able to show you stories of open corruption and budget scandals, protection rackets and deliberate work slow downs. And the local elected sheriffs don’t get off the hook either because many have created their own, mini corrupt empires.
“Defunding the police” was never, ever a stupid idea. It’s a fundamental thing that has to happen if you ever want to bring the police under control. The push-back on a mere slogan was entirely predictable because it threatened the money train.
How many times have you heard the saying “you can’t reform this?”
Because you can’t reform this. The NYPD Union literally doxxed the mayors daughter. 18,000 different police agencies. No real federal oversight. No real civilian oversight. Push back from the police at every step, protected by a well funded propaganda machine that lies at every opportunity.
Defund the police.
But you are arguing about improving behaviour, not getting rid of what you recognize to be an essential service in most modern places.
A recent report in Canada asks what the police are for, and states:
“What are the police for?” the report asks, not unreasonably. In answering, it cites criminologist Ian Loader’s 2016 book, “In Search of Civic Policing: Recasting the Peelian Principles.” [which come from the British Conservative founder of the London Metropolitan Police Service].
“The basic mission of the police is to improve public safety and well-being by promoting measures to prevent crime, harm and disorder,” the first principle reads. The fourth to “treat all those with whom they come into contact with fairness and respect.” The fifth to “be answerable to law and democratically responsive to the people they serve”; the sixth to “achieve the optimal balance between effectiveness, cost-efficiency, accountability and responsiveness.” And if those all sound really basic to you, that’s because they are.
These ideals are aspirational; no bureaucracy achieves an optimal balance. Many mistakes can be made by people doing their best and acting in good faith. This report came from police trying to deal with a difficult situation. They could have done many things better, but one should have some sympathy for people doing their best in difficult situations while making needed changes so they can do better in the future, providing they were acting reasonably and in good faith. Public confidence suffers when this is not so, on occasion worsened by further arrogance or lack of transparency or flagrant violations. Historical factors may also make trust more difficult.
Still, it is fairly clear efforts at reform should work towards the above goals or similar ones. I like libraries, and often disagree with how funding is allocated, but choosing specific items makes the process seem less complex than it is since it does not always reduce to more X less Y. I would double funding for libraries everywhere, but sadly lack the power to do so.
What people realistically want from the police is fairness and good faith. Police regulations and relevant law tend to be fairly reasonable, in my limited experience, but are not perhaps followed as often or as closely as they should be. I think police should follow and enforce the law, not be trying to test it or push its boundaries.
It is not uncommon for politicians during times of austerity to cut the funding for many government departments by, say, ten percent. Does this seem to dramatically change how things are done? I am no expert and cannot say which improvements may bring the best results. It might start with hiring excellent people and paying them enough to make this possible.
…I’m literally arguing to defund the police.
The NYPD don’t need to spend the forecast 740 million dollars on overtime. They don’t need to be spending the budgeted 472 million dollars on overtime. They don’t need to be spending 100 million on overtime. They likely don’t need to be spending 50 million dollars on overtime. Its a scam. Its been a scam for a very long time. You can fix it by defunding it. It should outrage everyone. The fact that most people don’t even know it’s happening though says it all. Police propaganda is very effective.
You didn’t share with us what you were quoting from. So I googled " “What are the police for?” the report asks, not unreasonably. In answering, it cites criminologist Ian Loader’s 2016 book" and I got this article from a few days ago.
The larger quote you used wasn’t from the actual report. It was from commentary on the report. And the person that provided the commentary doesn’t agree with you. Selley doesn’t argue for “improving behaviour.” Selley argues that the RCMP failings are inexplicable, unforgivable, and starting from scratch is probably the only sensible response.
Which police union in America do you believe largely acts in good faith? Name them.
Because America doesn’t lock up more people per capita than anywhere else in the world because it is dealing with “difficult situations.” They do it because it is easier, and faster, and they can make a bit of money on the side. Don’t ask me to have sympathy for them.
I see a difference between doing your best in difficult circumstances but making a lot of errors, and intentional abuses such as certain incidents which have occurred in the United States and elsewhere which received wide publicity and condemnation. I don’t agree the only sensible response is to start anew if it falls into the former category, but in any case I do hope they follow through on the recommendations made to improve things.
I am unfamiliar with the details of how the NYPD is paid, and if scandalous these details are certainly not well known in Canada. I don’t know much about American policing. I think the principles mentioned above seem like a good starting point.
…this is the RCMP.
https://fafia-afai.org/en/a-report-on-the-toxic-culture-of-misogyny-racism-and-violence-in-the-rcmp/
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/431/SECU/Brief/BR10854072/br-external/BanwarieRae-e.pdf
In addition, google “Starlight Tours”.
The indigenous peoples of Canada have suffered at the hands of your police forces for as long as policing has been a thing. The treatment has been a disgrace.
And these don’t receive wide publicity and condemnation. Not to the degree that it makes any difference. It’s called institutional racism for a reason.
Well you’ve got plenty of your own scandals to deal with.
The principles don’t matter without oversight. There are 18,000 different police agencies in America. Some, like the NYPD literally pay lip service to oversight. And if you are the elected sheriff of some random county with dysfunctional local government, they are the law.
How exactly do you imagine implementing a set of guiding principles to thousands of police unions and agencies that actively defend even the most egregious of crimes, fought for qualified immunity, are fighting to ban being filmed?
They don’t want oversight. They will fight it every step of the way. They want to do their own thing.
This isn’t an episode of Law and Order. It’s an episode of Max Headroom. It’s a dystopia. The police are out of control. Defunding is just the start of the process of reigning them in.
But if you cut the amount of money for overtime, they’ll just find some other fraud. You have to improve operating procedures, discipline, and accountability - in other words, you need better police forces. The money is a symptom, not the root cause. If you fix the system, you’ll also end up saving money.
Here’s an idea: cancel all police departments and sheriffs and replace them with the Sate Police. Centralize law enforcement at the state level.
This is a great way to increase crime in the rural and less populated areas of the states, especially large states like California, many of whose residents live hundreds of miles from major population centres. Los Angeles’s needs will be enormous and visible; Siskiyou County, not so much.
Why would they not be able to have a state police department in Siskiyou County?
If anything, a place like Siskiyou County may not be able to afford to have enough officers to keep crime down, the state actually could.
What I meant is that the allocation of resources from a whole-state perspective might shortchange smaller and more peripheral places, particularly if the whole is underfunded.
That said, Canada has the RCMP (though also other police forces) and the population of Canada is about equivalent to that of California, with a much larger territory to cover, so it’s not an insurmountable problem.
Smaller and more peripheral places are already shortchanged, because they’re usually also poorer. A state police force can actually be more flexible, assigning officers where they’re needed instead of where they can be afforded.
Not to mention that all the police will have the same standardized training and same change of command. Plus, if you fire a cop, he won’t be able to get a job in the next town over.
Also, because they’ll be financed at the state level, individual stations will have much less of an incentive to raise money via fines, which means that cops will no longer be issuing excessive tickets to finance their own little fiefdoms.