While the trial of police officer Derek Chavin will soon come to an end, The Hill website reported this morning that there is fear of a new wave of sympathy for supporters of the “Defund the police” approach (cutting funding for police services) .
If the elected Republicans do not subscribe to this idea, the Democrats are more divided, not to say torn, on this issue. Many are convinced that this slogan, and the idea behind it, has weighed down the chances of some candidates in the 2020 election.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden also intervened to stress that they did not believe that this was a good solution, candidate Biden going so far as to offer additional sums to support the work of the police.
Whether Democrats are divided or handicapped by this slogan does not seem to moderate the ardor of many activists. Frustrated and discouraged by the proliferation of cases of police brutality against minorities, especially the black minority, they no longer wait for the results of possible reforms. Disappointed with past experiences, they consider more drastic options.
But what do we mean by “Defund the police”? It’s not always easy to find your way around because the activists present it from several angles. We go from the simple reduction of budgets (of the sums that would be redistributed in the community) or of the reduction of the workforce (less police officers, less brutality) to the outright abolition of the police forces.
The most radical vision expressed from the start is well summed up in a text by Mariame Kaba published in the New York Times in June 2020. If his argument is noble and it is based on previous reform failures, it does not seem realistic to me and adapted to the United States of 2021 as crime and the use of weapons are a scourge.
Mme Kaba relies on a community approach. By dismantling the police services, we redistribute the money towards education, the construction of accessible housing, mental health or by offering better, more stable or better paid jobs. She is convinced that by doing so the police, as we see them today, would become obsolete. This would be the case with prisons.
In his eyes, and I hope not to betray the tenor of his words, we should help rather than punish. She denounces the fact that our first reflection on social problems is to rely on the police and imprisonment. While she does not believe that her vision can be successful in the immediate future, she is convinced that this is the solution in the medium and long term.
Very difficult to be against virtue and the vision of many of the activists is virtuous. And I am sensitive to the anger and frustration of the black community. One cannot have studied and taught the history of the United States without seeing too many failures in dealing with the fallout of slavery, segregation or discrimination.
If the demands and the demonstrations could not be more legitimate, should we attack the police forces? The answer to this question is complex and deserves thought and nuance, but I believe that we are on the wrong track in considering severe budget cuts or in talking about dismantling.
It is more obvious than ever that the police services need to be stopped and the phenomenon is not recent. There is basically a problem of training and recruitment. Above all, I would not want us to underestimate the urgent needs to be met in this regard. But I am also sensitive to the context in which the police are asked to do their work.
Where I support an argument like that of Mme Kaba is when it evokes economic and social problems for which only timid, insufficient proposals are offered. She is perfectly right to deplore the accommodation conditions, the working environment, education and even health care.
The median income for black Americans is around $ 40,000 / year while it is approximately $ 70,000 / year for whites. How can such a difference be explained if not by considering the color of the skin among the main indicators?
Where I pick up and believe we are on the wrong track is by placing the full weight of this imbalance on the shoulders of the police. It is they who are at the front and who are asked to intervene to confront a reality or problems for which they are not primarily responsible.
Our neighbors have long needed soul-searching on this issue. To limit myself to the work of the police alone is in my view a serious mistake and a bad solution. Not only are we not solving the problem at the source, but by talking about downsizing or dismantling police forces, we send a disturbing message to many Americans.
How can we not understand those who fear for stability and security? Just like Mme Kaba, I dream of a society that relies on mutual aid and collaboration, which encourages rehabilitation and which does not rely only on sanctions. But that’s just it for now, a dream. Instead, let’s encourage elected officials to look at the causes of the problems.
In the meantime, let’s demand the best from law enforcement while being vigilant and denouncing police officers like Derek Chauvin. But do not expect the police to provide a solution to the shortcomings of a society which neglects a large part of its citizens.