Why ‘De-Policing’ Isn’t as Mad as It Sounds

I get it. You hear racial justice protesters calling for “de-funding police,” and you think they are advocating a society without any protection from violence. You worry about what will happen if law enforcement isn’t there and ready to answer the call in case you need them.

As I said, I get it. First, because the slogan works far better on a placard among the like-minded than as a strategic message for the masses. And second, because as a white man, I’ve been told all my life that the cops were there to protect me. To the extent you think of them in this way, I’m guessing you’re probably white too, and certainly not black and poor. Don’t get me wrong: I know there are plenty of folks of color who are also unsure about de-funding the cops, and who worry about what would replace them. And I’m not saying that police don’t sometimes prove helpful to black folks victimized by crime — they do. I’m just saying that to be black or brown is to have a much different relationship to the institution of policing and to be far more open to the idea that there must be better ways of protecting the public.

And this is what I’d like for us to consider. To whatever extent the cops serve legitimate ends, might there be different ways to serve those ends that were less oppressive and hurtful to others? And better for the overall well-being of society?

So ask yourself: Have you had to regularly call upon police because of a significant crime problem where you live? I suspect that for most of you, the answer to this is no. And if you live in neighborhoods with relatively low rates of serious criminality — surely not enough major felonies to where you regularly come in contact with law enforcement or need to call them for help — you’re already living under a kind of de-policed reality. And you’re not suffering mass chaos as a result.

If you have been the victim of a serious offense, your experience is different, and I can understand why you might feel reticent to endorse significant de-policing. On a couple of occasions in my life, I’ve had this experience myself. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint, had my apartment broken into and was shot at randomly from a passing car — yes, really.

But here’s the thing: those things happened even though the perpetrators knew police existed. The reality of law enforcement did not deter them — even a well-armed, often brutal New Orleans’ police force at that. The first two incidents were almost certainly the work of addicts looking for money to feed their addictions, and the latter was that of two sociopathic assholes willing to shoot at random people on the street a mere four blocks from a police station. Neither of these kinds of folks is easily deterred. The addict is too desperate to think about getting caught, while sociopaths, by definition, aren’t thinking about consequences.

For the addict, there are ways to prevent them from reaching the point of desperation that leads them to stick a gun in someone’s face. But what about the sociopath, you ask? Don’t we need to get them off the street before they hit someone with those bullets they fire from a car window? Sure. But at the point where they’ve already committed a crime like that, we really only need the investigative function of policing — detectives, for instance — and not the vast enforcer apparatus represented by street and patrol cops.

And yet, the investigative arm of police departments is small relative to the overall infrastructure of law enforcement. There is a broad base of enforcers who make arrests, disproportionately for pretty minor offenses — and often for things that shouldn’t be criminalized anyway. This is why large police departments have major crimes units — because responding to such crimes is not what the entire force, or even most of it, does.

So right off the bat, we should be able to rethink our commitment to anything resembling our current notion of policing. Billions of dollars are wasted so cops can bust people for minor quality of life offenses, weed, petty theft, and other non-violent activities.

In New York, under stop-and-frisk, over 90 percent of the millions of stops made resulted in not even a citation, let alone arrest. Guns were found in only one-tenth of one percent of all stops. Essentially, police were being paid to harass people, and for no other reason but to instill fear — especially in black and brown young men.

And yes, I know some say it’s essential to police these minor issues to send a message about what the community will and won’t tolerate. “Broken windows” theory says if you allow quality of life violations to go unpunished, you lower the threshold for serious offenses by signaling a mentality of indifference to the neighborhood’s safety. But even if the quality of neighborhood infrastructure is connected to serious offending, or loitering and public intoxication are gateway violations to violent crime, are police the only way to deal with these things? Is it possible to improve infrastructure and address things that contribute to loitering (like joblessness and addiction) by way of social service entities and community organizations, rather than through criminalization?

Of course, this is possible — but not if all the money goes to cops instead of those other things.

See, this is the point: those who support de-policing are not saying to hell with public safety, or that we should just let people do whatever they want without consequence. They are saying there are other ways to minimize threats to that safety and that by creating a vast policing infrastructure, we encourage the criminalization of activities that can be addressed through different mechanisms.

So, if you aren’t experiencing much crime in your community, what do you fear about de-policing? Do you worry that if the “bad guys” get word that there are far fewer law enforcement officials out there, they will then decide to declare open season on your block? Do you believe police are some “thin blue line” between you and roving bands of predators just waiting for the opportunity to break into your house and harm your loved ones?

As a parent, I appreciate the desire to protect one’s family. But the idea that a strong police force can deter home invasions is pretty silly. People inclined to break into your house are often so desperate for money or drugs that deterrence is not really possible for them. And if it is, good lighting — even that which a city itself can provide on every street — or a decent, visibly present security system will typically serve that purpose. And in higher crime areas, the presence of trained and disciplined patrols made up of community members could serve that function as well or better than police.

For others who commit these kinds of offenses, they do so even though they know full well the homeowner might be armed. With 300 million weapons in private hands, the fact that offenders are willing to break into a home and possibly attack the residents suggests that the fear of being caught or even killed is not much of a check on such behavior.

So guess what? The fact that more people don’t commit this kind of crime isn’t because of police. It’s because — and I know this will be difficult to accept for some people — most folks just aren’t looking to hurt you. Most people are not evil and horrible and seeking to cause others harm. And those who are, do not make their criminal decisions based on the size and scope of local law enforcement.

In other words, the kinds of people who are truly dangerous are not likely to be deterred, and the types of people capable of being deterred aren’t that dangerous. To whatever extent the latter are, we can best minimize the harm they do through other means that would address the underlying issues for their offenses, such as addiction, lack of income, housing insecurity, and mental health issues.

As for those serious crimes I experienced, the cops were of no use in responding to any of them. In fact, in each case, the officers with whom I spoke seemed put out that they were being asked to write a report. And their advice in each instance was common sense: walk in well-lit areas, get a better lock for your door, and be aware of your surroundings. In other words, they were all but admitting that they were useless for solving crime. But meanwhile, they were plenty adept when it came to arresting homeless people, or guys slinging weed on the corner.

Obviously, there will remain some need for a law enforcement presence in this country — and by the way, very few of the voices demanding the de-funding of police would disagree with that statement. De-policing does not mean we’re going to turn to mutual aid societies or volunteer social workers to apprehend serial killers or rapists. Nor does it rest on the assumption that if we just ensure good jobs and universal health care, such crimes as these would disappear. Rather, it means recognizing that the share of people being cited or arrested by cops each year who fit seriously dangerous categories, is quite small. It is certainly far too small to justify the massive police budgets we see at present.

But ultimately, if the reason we think we need cops is that we’re afraid, and the reason we’re afraid is because of the reality of crime, and the reality of crime is driven by social inequalities — and all the evidence says this is true — then why do we think the solution is cops, rather than addressing those inequalities?

What we need is a total rethink of public safety — first and foremost, actually calling it that, rather than law enforcement. The former concept places emphasis on ensuring the well-being of the community, while the latter places emphasis on order for order’s sake — on following the rules as an end in itself. Under a public safety paradigm, we would be shifting money from police to mental health counseling, housing, education, addiction treatment, trauma recovery, community engagement, and mentoring. We’d be taking care of people on the front end rather than dealing with their damage on the back end.

And if we did that, none of us would have to live in fear — whether of crime or those whose job it is to prevent it.