Calls to defund, demilitarize police thorny

Police serve several functions in a healthy society. Some are community-based. Some, protective. Others more assertive.

Re-examining the parameters, tools, and functions of this sensitive, essential relationship behooves all sides. But tossing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater is rarely the answer.

Protesters in Tuesday’s demonstration downtown — one of many around the nation in a swelling cancer of public distrust of law enforcement, engulfing good officers along with bad — called for the defunding or demilitarization of police.

What exactly do those terms mean?

Are they equating police with the Army? Does it mean a smaller budget, or entirely disbanding departments, leaving us with no police? The answer depends on whom you ask.

Demilitarization is clearer. The “war on drugs” resulted in $4.3 billion of disused military equipment transferred between 1997 and 2014 by the Department of Defense to local police departments around the nation.

At first, the high-powered weapons, protective equipment, and armored vehicles were ostensibly intended mostly for SWAT team use against active shooters, hostile or armed mobs, hostage situations, and other emergencies such as terrorism. Most police leaders perceive SWAT teams and other militarized units as a necessity for police and public safety.

A 2018 Princeton University study of 9,000 departments — the nation’s first systemic analysis on police use of militarized force – found:

1. Police militarization and the acquisition of SWAT forces had no perceptible impact on police safety — the number of officers killed or assaulted — on a national level, nor reduced rates of violent crime.

2. Merely seeing militarized units can erode public confidence in law enforcement and give the impression that a police department is overfunded, even when it isn’t.

3. Regarding SWAT deployments, while agencies’ recordkeeping varies widely, the “overwhelming majority” are used to execute search and arrest warrants and drug busts.

4. Predominantly black areas witnessed more such SWAT deployments than white neighborhoods, even when those areas had low rates of crime.

5. Military-style tactics in stop-and-frisk and security checkpoints did have some effect on targeted crimes such as weapons possession. It had “little impact” on crime overall.

6. In a related survey, 6,000 people were questioned after reading a mock news article about a police chief looking for a budget increase, with different photos. Some featured police in normal gear, while others showed militarized police. Respondents were more likely to perceive a city as being violent if they saw militarized photos.

“Defunding” is a concept on a spectrum reimagining what public safety looks like. While a growing number of Americans reacting to racial inequalities and extreme examples of brutality believe we may be better off without police at all, they seem to be in the minority.

According to sociologists conducting current research at Yale University, other supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments in favor of social services, reducing police-public contact. They see this as the first step toward creating a very different model of community-led public safety, turning away from the punishment-first culture in the criminal justice system.

A new “first responder.” In such a reimagined system, police would still exist but would respond to more limited situations. First-response social and mental health workers, community support of families in crisis — this is the sort of thing they have in mind to potentially de-escalate some types of encounters currently addressed by officers. The saved dollars would go to mental health services, domestic violence, homelessness, literacy and specialized education efforts. Policing, they say, could be limited to violent crimes, robberies, and the like.

That general idea seems to be increasing traction, gaining support or consideration among some law enforcement and civic leaders. Trainings and body cameras haven’t brought about as much change — to benefit police as well as communities they serve — as once hoped across the country.

It may seem counterintuitive, but there is at least some indication that more limited policing may lead to less crime. A 2017 report, which focused on several weeks in 2014 through 2015 when the New York Police Department purposely pulled back on “proactive policing,” found that there were 2,100 fewer crime complaints during that time.

However things turn out after these shifting winds, police culture is changing. There is no doubt we need the police, who respond at their own risk to a broad range of public-safety needs. If police are disbanded or too “defunded,” those most affected will be the poor and the marginalized (the wealthy, as was the case centuries ago, would hire their own security).

But society always has room to grow. Societies learn as time passes and can better face challenges with growing awareness. If they don’t go overboard.

Perhaps what we need is a reinvestment — not so much of dollars as mutual recommitment. As much as institutional reform and changed approaches may be needed to ensure all Americans equality of protection and reasons to trust, we also need to return such sentiment to officers who earn it. As many in our little corner of world do.

Every relationship worth having requires reinvestments, growing with time and understanding. This one is certainly worth having.

• • •

Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at Sholeh@cdapress.com.