DEFUND THE POLICE!  A battle cry of anger and a demand for change coming from thousands, perhaps millions, of demonstrators and citizens who have risen up to decry the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of the police in Minneapolis.  The incident has been widely reported and will be sorted out over years of legal actions, administrative review, and political wrangling. 

FIRST…Let's Move Beyond Inflammatory Rhetoric!

It has been difficult to engage in meaningful discussions around this push to “Defund the Police”, because the phrase itself is notoriously inflammatory and very poorly worded.  Since the majority of the public had never heard this term prior to the George Floyd killing, it is understandable that many people take the term at face value – protestors demanding that governments “eliminate funding for the police”.  And since the term is not compromising – i.e., there are no protesters in the streets who are yelling “Reduce Funding for the Police” – it is also logical that many people assume that protestors are demanding the total elimination of police departments across the country.  This has given rise to a predictable “Stand for the Blue” counter-movement with people proclaiming their respect and their support for law enforcement officers and for local police departments.  The social media wars around this “Defund” vs. “Stand Blue” battle have, therefore, become a predictable battle of Chaos vs. Order, Brutality vs. Safety, Protestors vs. Oppressors, and Criminals vs. Communities.   This social and verbal battle is a useless confrontation with no compromise in sight.  

Although there might be a few avowed anarchists who want no police force at all, the vast majority of social activists who support the concept to “Defund the Police” are actually pushing for a rethinking of how local governments should meet the social needs of their communities.  More specifically, how can money be better spent to eliminate or address the causes of social problems rather than on police forces which deal with the unfortunate results of social problems that have been left unaddressed. Respecting this latter definition, a better term would be something more akin to “PREFUND the POLICE” – how do we spend money upfront to eliminate social problems long before police interaction becomes necessary.  In short, how do we appropriately spend money “upstream” to eliminate social problems before disturbance, crime, and violence happen “downstream”. [1] 

A common example of Prefunding the Police can be found in many places around the world where police departments have partnered with mental health institutions and addiction programs to help troubled individuals get medical help and social support before police interventions become necessary.  In Melbourne Australia, for example, domestic abuse counselors have been placed in hospitals to respond to suspected abuse situations without having to call for police or request a violent confrontation within the home.  Likewise, mental health professionals often serve as the first responders to situations involving a disruptive or disturbed individual without needing police officers to become involved.  Whether it be nutrition and social support programs that eliminate the drivers of petty theft, addiction programs that reduce the incidents of violent crime, or mental health programs that reduce cases of domestic violence, the concept is the same – fund useful social programs before (i.e. prefund) community policing becomes necessary.

Once we shift our discussion way from “Defunding the Police” to Prefunding Social Concerns, an easy argument can be made that this is actually a call to support local law enforcement efforts – enabling properly skilled and trained professionals to address social needs while allowing traditional police officers to be redeployed where they are more desperately needed.  Undoubtedly, this concept would require a significant shift in training, staffing, and deployment of current law enforcement professionals.  But, in the long run it promises to be the right deployment of the right professionals at the right time in the right circumstances in order to achieve the right outcome.

Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion -- now and for the foreseeable future -- let us jettison the inflammatory terminology of “Defunding the Police” and replace it with the more proactive terminology of “Prefunding Upstream Concerns”. Let's all come together for a meaningful discussion -- how do we better spend our dollars; how do we reduce crime; and, how do we actually protect both citizens and law enforcement officers from unnecessary assault and violence?

FOR MORE ON THIS TOPIC, please read the essay, "Swimming Upstream".