‘Defund the Police’ Concerns

(Editor's Note: Choosing this topic to write my first entry in over a year is stupid and probably going to block me from some future dream job. I should subtitle this something awful like, "A Few Bad Apples May Spoil the Bunch, but We Still Need Apples to Make Apple Pie!")

While ‘Defunding the Police’ has become the popular action to cry/thing to decry across the nation (it's simultaneously edgy and en vogue), most rational people agree that it’s a bad slogan because at their core, most people don’t believe in eliminating police departments. Some sort of explanation is then necessary to relay the individual’s nuanced interpretation of the slogan (which probably differs from the next person, who may sincerely believe in abolishing the police). Slogans that need clarification are bad slogans, which is why it appears Joe Biden’s advisers said until the movement gets it together, he won’t back defunding the police. (Honestly, as he caters to the white suburbs, it's unlikely he'll ever back it). Anyway, the basic consensus on meaning appears to include a reduction in forces while providing a corresponding increase in social workers and other professionals to handle some of the duties police officers are currently tasked with.

Is this a good idea? Probably in theory, but I have little faith in how it would be executed. I’m sure the majority of cops would love to get bullshit such as marriage mediation off their plate, and generally don’t enjoy responding to overdose calls. And there’s some good from diversification in how societal ills are treated – the same argument for why we have family court, drug court, and a bifurcation of civil and criminal processes.


Are Social Workers Effective Replacements?

Here’s a Twitter user's perspective, who I have decided speaks for everyone:

You want to know what defunding the police means?

It means that Wendy’s could have called a tow truck instead of 911 and Rayshard Brooks would be alive tonight or a social worker could have been called if they suspected he was under the influence and/or homeless.

— WashSpinDry (@spin_wash) June 15, 2020

This in response to the police shooting of a black man in a Atlanta Wendy’s parking lot. And while an amount of investigation remains necessary, the basic facts appear to be:

• Rayshard Brooks fell asleep in the Wendy’s drive-thru; 
• Two responding officers administered a sobriety test, which he failed; 
• In attempting to arrest Brooks, he resisted arrest, stole an officer’s Taser, and ran from the officers; 
• While running away, Brooks turned and pointed the Taser at the officers, at which point one officer fired two shots that struck Brooks in the back and killed him

The situation sucks, and I have little desire in speculating or ruminating on how it should have been handled. And maybe if a social worker and tow truck driver were deployed no one would have died. Indeed, it's likely everyone would still be alive. But it's not guaranteed - consider the alternative scenario: social worker determines Brooks is intoxicated and shouldn’t be driving. Tow truck attempts to hook up to car. Brooks decides he doesn’t want his car towed (who does?), and assaults one or both people to get his car unhooked before driving off. Drunk.

Now you have 1-2 people who have been assaulted, and a drunk driver back on the road. And if not Mr. Brooks that night, then a Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jones, or Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. White, etc. Because this same thing happens every night across the country. And yes, I’m 100% in favor of criminalizing the act of driving after getting so wasted you’re apt to pass out in the drive-thru. 

Before viscerally reacting, understand that this doesn't serve as a counterargument to "driving drunk and resisting arrest is not a capital offense in America." A discussion should be had as to how the criminal system subsequently handles the case, but that behavior gets people killed, and is unacceptable. Those are my values.

So maybe there are instances in which law enforcement officers aren’t the individuals best equipped to respond. But they often are when the law needs to be enforced. And they’re infinitely better equipped to respond if a situation escalates. Is the presence of police officers more likely to cause the situation to escalate? Do they cause the escalation? Now there's where the nuance of ‘Defund the Police’ movement can serve a purpose.

Negative Externalities

There’s a world wherein we just slash police department budgets and redirect funding for social services, homeless outreach, affordable housing, drug treatment, etc. That world could suck for black Americans. NPR’s Planet Money did an excellent piece on this yesterday, outlining how police departments often utilize ticketing to subsidize their expenses:

The easy example of this was Ferguson, Missouri, where black citizens were hammered with 85 percent of tickets (95 percent of jaywalking tickets). We know which cars get targeted (I remember being pulled over in my shitty G6 with a busted bumper and scraped rear door because “my license plate wasn’t properly illuminated.” And then getting an unnecessary field sobriety test. I have a sneaky suspicion that doesn’t happen to Audi drivers). And we know which drivers get targeted. Squeezing departments without removing the incentive to increase ticketing will only increase the economic pain on those least able to afford it.

Someone making minimum wage can’t pay a $500 fine (let alone the damn court fees once a sympathetic Traffic Court judge drops the ‘no turn signal’ charge). Not that person is under additional stress and more likely to do something erratic. Like crime to pay their bills. Or abuse substances to temporarily escape their situation. Or take out their frustration on a domestic partner. Or child. Or all of the above. Poverty is a cycle that we do little to help the lowest rung escape from. Incentivizing additional burdens is a bad idea.

Traffic fine reform is another issue ripe for reform - probably before defunding the police - but make no mistake: in a vacuum, defunding the police by reducing general fund support will absolutely result in an increase in special revenue funds by way of increased traffic tickets. And the burden will fall disproportionately on minorities and low-income drivers.

As an aside, quotas suck. No officer wants to face a minimum number of tickets (though each accepts the task with a different degree of willingness). Quotas drive unnecessary wedges between officers and the communities they're supposed to serve. Budgetary pressures incentivize quotas.

My Alternative Prescription?

Not sure, but I’m not so disillusioned to believe I can fix institutionalized problems that will take years (and honestly, decades) to fully address with some simple budget amendments. Sometimes incrementalism is bullshit. Sometimes it’s necessary. We can’t create utopia in six months, but we can make 2021 better. Maybe just make everyone unhappy by doubling police pay in your city and see if that doesn't help recruit/retain the best employees, using a massive property tax increase to pay for it?