‘Defund’ issue is really about decision-making

In her Marin Voice commentary recently published in the Marin IJ (“‘Defunding’ police doesn’t get people off drugs or help mentally ill,” Oct. 1), Anne Rettenberg writes, “A major way that people get into substance abuse treatment is through the courts and prisons.” This opinion is offered unironically as a counterpoint to law enforcement reform and the call to “defund police.” I believe that this viewpoint is straight from the failed 1990s “superpredator” playbook and the fact that it persists is a tacit admission that the status quo needs reform.

I startedmy legal career as an the assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, New York. Today, I am a criminal defense attorney, regularly appointed to represent indigent Marin defendants. While working on both sides of these issues, I have learned that penalties are not necessarily effective deterrents.

Poverty, addiction and poor mental health can be more powerful than the consequences of committing minor crimes. Treating each individual as an individual may be the surest path to justice, but that is not a particular strength of the criminal legal system.

Even if we were to supercharge non-penal mental health and addiction services, the police reorganization debate is not about whether there is enoughmoney to go around.

Should the Marin Sheriff’s Office self-manage the only process to make complaints against a deputy? Is continued maintenance of the moral albatross that is Marin’s juvenile hall sound policy? How much force is excessive force? Does every school need a fulltime cop?

The call to “defund police” seems to be a vote of no confidence, a call for redirection of tax dollars to non-penal solutions forwhat ails our community — voting with themunicipal wallet. In that sense, throwing goodmoney after bad is a poor business decision. Some reform advocates are making an economic argument, but not the kind that is resolved solely by a wealthy tax base.

— Peter James Chambers,

San Rafael