June 29, 2020
With the recent public protesting regarding the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, there have been increased cries from activists to "#defund the police." What does it actually mean, and what does the future hold for this action plan?
____________________________
The death of George Floyd has caused immense feelings of anger, sadness, shock, and a serious desire to make important changes in how we police our communities. Over the past month, the country has seen massive protests, rioting, and looting as a result of the viral video of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin sitting on the neck of George Floyd, a resident who was arrested and interrogated due to the alleged use of a counterfeit $20 dollar bill. During his arrest, he died of asphyxia when Mr. Chauvin put his knee on Mr. Floyd's neck for approximately 9 minutes. The tragedy was that Mr. Floyd did not have to die, and his death has plunged the country into a time of chaos and intense soul-searching. A few weeks later, Rayshard Brooks, an Atlanta resident, was also shot and killed by officer Garret Rolfe, after talking to him when he fell asleep in the drive-through at a Wendy's. The incident inflamed national protests as well and the media covered it incessantly. The officer was charged with murder by the District Attorney's office, who it could be said, was motivated by political ambitions as well. Although it appeared to me he was pressured to charge officer Rolfe with murder, media pundits felt that it was too harsh, and the officer should be acquitted. That could lead to more racial unrest as well.
The unfortunate killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri by a police officer in 2014 was jarring itself, but I think this event was just the match to ignite the tension, based over years of the city using the poor population within Ferguson to make up for revenue shortfalls for the city's budgets. The police department was the collections agency and sought out individuals who would have a hard time paying fines and dealing with the bureaucracy. It was a combustible mix.
What is the next step? There has been some talk amongst the political class, and activists, to "defund or abolish" the police. I don't see that as a logical and practical step to improve interactions between police departments and black citizens in this country. Police are needed, and an important part of a quality of life within cities in the United States.
Anger is palpable in those communities affected the most by wayward police officers. Since 2020 is an election year, the hashtag #defundthepolice has picked up steam, both on Twitter and with the mainstream media. This is a very dangerous idea that is being fueled by partisans in the public sphere. While I think many Americans genuinely feel that reforming the police in our communities is good, completely removing effective policing is not the way to go. Citizens in lower-income neighborhoods will bear the brunt of the void. Criminal elements, including rival gangs, will move in and force residents to adhere to the laws of the street, as opposed to what legislators enact through laws and ordinances. Most American cities are controlled by the Democratic machine in those cities, including New York, Seattle, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston, and Chicago. Many of these cities do have large crime problems, especially violence. So, the idea of removing police seems absurd to me but is understandable because of the large groundswell of desire to do something.
What are the options for Congress and the American people to move toward? One idea that can be tried is the example set by the city of Camden, New Jersey, a Democratic party stronghold that has historically had serious crime problems. The murder rate was roughly 87 people over 100,000 of the population, a number that was higher than the city of Baltimore, which has the nation's highest murder rate, according to Steven Walters, of the National Review. In 2012, Camden revamped its relationship with the police. Before the change was made, the police union was able to get the city to compensate each officer with a generous benefits package (the cost to the city was $182,168) which resulted in Camden being able to afford only 175 officers, of which a small number were assigned to patrol during peak hours when needed the most, at night. They ultimately chose to fire the unionized police officers and re-hired some of them as county employees, which reduced the costs to the city for each officer to $99,606 (Walters), and within a few years of this change, the police department grew to 400 officers. Liberal organizations like to say the city abolished their police force because it reads better, but in actuality, it simply restructured compensation so that the city could afford more police, and made them more effective.
Another program to consider is the Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) program run by the city of Eugene, Oregon. The city works to provide an alternative method of policing in terms of dealing with those individuals who have mental health and other non-violent problems within their community. Those encounters may be more open to dialogue and could de-escalate a situation if a civilian professional was dispatched to a location as support to, or perhaps instead of, law enforcement. I feel that for large cities this may not work as in Eugene, due to the massive scale of their own problems, but in smaller cities such as Portland, it could lead to a community's better relationship with its police. Metropolitan locations with dense populations will have the tax money to make similar changes, but in locations where tax money is scarce, such as rural towns, it might be hard to implement what the city of Camden did. This is a good time for Congress to borrow from Camden and Eugene or similar type models to avoid the Ferguson model. Good legislation to modernize and innovate policing with well-thought-out guidelines is paramount this year.
The people protesting in the streets on a weekly basis are not interested in police reform. I think they have a different agenda than the actual community activists who want to see better policing, and not the elimination of a police force. Since this is an election year, some Democrats are promoting the idea of getting rid of law enforcement altogether, which makes for great soundbites on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, but is not helping move the dialogue along. Those in poor neighborhoods will suffer the most with a lack of effective law enforcement, and most Americans who are polled are actually in favor of a better police presence.
The media tends to create narratives around an agenda rather than finding the root cause of an issue and provide the facts to the viewer. It is presented as riveting drama and conflict to see people fighting with police. It increases conflict and causes the people to lose faith in their much-needed institutions, such as police departments and local government. I believe the horrible way in which George Floyd died was the impetus to break free of the confinement of social distancing and let out suppressed anger of the many things we as people are forced to endure this year. I understand the reasoning for this, in addition to genuine sadness to how black Americans interact and suffer from aggressive policing. Now is the time for Congress to avoid partisan bickering, and put forth policy proposals to improve the way we police our cities. In return, Americans need to reassure the police they are needed, appreciated and their sacrifices mean something to us, and the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks will bring about the change we so desperately need.
America is a great, but flawed country and the Constitution provides us with the tools to make necessary changes to improve our quality of life including equal protection under the law. If we as a society can make profound improvements regarding our relationship with police, it will be a massive boost to our spirits in a very challenging year.
#ImprovePoliceInOurCommunities
