Let’s spend more on curing the disease

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. Contrary to what President Trump and many conservatives are saying, it does not mean abolishing policing or law enforcement.

Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded its police force and dissolved the local police union but restructured to a more effective and efficient operation with less restrictions from a powerful union.

Different from abolishing and starting anew, defunding police highlights fiscal responsibility, advocates for a market-driven approach to taxpayer money, and has some potential benefits that will reduce police violence and crime.

Data show that 9 out of 10 calls for police are for nonviolent encounters. This does not mean that an incident will not turn violent, but police at times contribute to the escalation of violent force. Police officers’ skill set and training are often out of sync with the social interactions that they have to face. Police are mostly trained in use-of-force tactics and worst-case scenarios to reduce potential threats.

Officers respond to everything from potholes in the street to cats stuck up a tree. Police are also increasingly asked to complete paperwork and online forms. It could be argued that reducing officer workload would increase the likelihood of solving violent crimes.

Officers are overworked and overstressed. Focusing on menial tasks throughout the day is inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. Other lowerpaid government employees should be responsible for these and receive adequate funding for doing them.

Violent urban crime that drains police time and funds is a symptom of poverty and lack of quality education. More needs to be spent on curing the