 |
| Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey being booed by protesters (CNN) |
I understand their motives and agree with them. But their overwhelming sympathy for a worthy cause (which I support) has made them stupid. The Minneapolis city council has announced their intention to defund and dismantle their police department! Which will be replaced by some sort of ‘transformative new model of public safety.’
Their mayor, Jacob Frey, opposes it. For which he was booed away by demonstrators in his own city. Frey believes in police reform. Not dismantlement. In light of the city council’s foolishness the only government agency that should be dismantled in my view is the city council.
I can tell you one group that is thrilled by this announcement. Organized crime. I can just hear ‘El Chapo’ Guzman saying ‘If only this were the case when I was running my drug cartel, I’d still be a free man with more freedom than ever to run it !’ Criminals will now have free reign to do what they please. You wanna rob a bank? Sure, no problem. Whose gonna call the cops? They don’t exist! You wanna molest a few kids? Why not? Who’s gonna stop you?! Who is it going to be reported to? A social service agency?!
Jail for sex offenders? No way. Therapy is what they need. That is the direction this new entity might be going. Instead of enforcing the law with the force sometimes needed, will this new entity instead use reason to dissuade a gun toting criminal from committing a crime?! Can the city council be that naive?
I know they want to end the police brutality so often directed against black people. That is something that everyone wants. Who in his right mind would want to see that continue? We must of course change the system enough so that kind of thing will end! That is an imperative. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. Even the most politically conservative public official. But dismantling the police department is not the way to do that.
Maybe the Minneapolis city council would retort that the new entity replacing the police department will still have law enforcement capabilities. And that the law will be as vigorously enforced as it was under the police. If that’s the case, then all they are really doing is changing the name, not the institution.
I doubt that is their intention. They apparently do not see law enforcement as a necessity. They see it as a problem, not as a solution. They want the people in this new entity to be kinder and gentler. They want a sympathetic approach to criminal suspects.
Maybe they think that apprehending an individual suspected of a violent crime with a handgun should approached with the power of reason rather than force. Maybe they think a criminal can be persuaded by reason to abandon the crime he is about to commit. Maybe they think an armed murder suspect should be confronted with reason instead of with a gun. That the power of the tongue will suffice to get him to surrender than would force. Maybe they think that sending violent criminals to therapy is a better idea than sending them to prison.
I wonder how well that would have worked with El Chapo?
Maybe they think that apprehending an individual suspected of a violent crime with a handgun should approached with the power of reason rather than force. Maybe they think a criminal can be persuaded by reason to abandon the crime he is about to commit. Maybe they think an armed murder suspect should be confronted with reason instead of with a gun. That the power of the tongue will suffice to get him to surrender than would force. Maybe they think that sending violent criminals to therapy is a better idea than sending them to prison.
I wonder how well that would have worked with El Chapo?
I still believe the vast majority of cops are decent human beings that are just as abhorred by what happened to George Floyd as are the vast majority of protesters are. These are good people who became cops in order to serve and protect us all. There is no reason for them to lose their jobs.
Creating a new entity that will focus on treating violent criminals with kindness instead of force will only embolden the criminals. If God forbid I were to be physically attacked by some antisemite, the last thing I would want would be for him to to treated with kindness… trying to convince him how wrong he is and then releasing him after he promises not to do it again. That is not the kind of protection I am looking for.
I am happy to see that Joe Biden, who will very likely be the next President agrees with the current one. Both of them are opposed to dismantling the police department. Nor do even the Democrats in congress want to do that.
In fact, they have proposed legislation that would do exactly what the intent of all these protests is. Although I don’t agree with all of it - this is one area where Republicans and Democrats should find enough common ground so that meaningful legislation can be passed. Which will hopefully mean a sea change in law enforcement that would nonetheless leave the police unhampered in their ability to enforce the law. And at the same time would go a long way to make the kind of changes necessary to eliminate a ‘George Floyd’ incident from ever happening again. According to NPR, this is what most of their proposal looks like:
It creates a National Police Misconduct Registry to track police misconduct and thwart officers from switching jurisdictions to avoid accountability.
The plan also looks to improve police practices by mandating training on racial bias and the duty to intervene.
It also limits the transfer of military-grade weapons to state and local law enforcement agencies and requires the use of body cameras.
The legislation would also empower attorneys general and the Justice Department to play a much larger role in its oversight of police agencies. For example, it would create a grant program to allow attorneys general to independently investigate police misconduct and excessive use of force. And it would give the Justice Department greater powers to investigate and track cases.
It would also condition federal funding for state and local police agencies to their training and adoption of policies to combat racial bias and profiling, as well as ban "no-knock" warrants in drug-related cases and the use of choke-holds.
It also makes lynching a federal crime, a revival of legislation already approved in the House and currently stalled in the Senate following failed attempts to pass it.
These proposals might require additional funding to the police departments. Not less. Which makes New York city Mayor Bill de Blasio’s proposal to cut funding and redirect it to social services almost as stupid as the Minneapolis City Council’s proposal to dismantle it entirely.
This is what happens when good people rule with their hearts instead of with their heads. Good intentions do not save lives. But good policing will. Fixing a serious problem does not mean eliminating one of the most vital institutions of a democracy - the police. Nor should it mean hampering its ability to enforce the law and protect people.
To the extent that there are serious problems is to the extent there ought to be serious solutions. But not at the expense of public safety. Which should be the highest priority of any governing body. Eliminating the police (or reducing their ability to do their jobs) replacing it with social services will do exactly the opposite. Increased funding to social services (which is a good thing) should never be at the expense of public safety.