A chance to rethink policing We should use this opportunity to narrow the responsibilities of law enforcement
For communities across the country, demands to “defund the police” have sparked a constructive and overdue discussion about how best to achieve public safety by striking a balance between law enforcement and prevention initiatives.
It is essentially a call to rethink and reinvent how law enforcement works — including the tasks that officers shoulder, the areas of police responsibility and what societal problems can be better addressed through other means and methods.
That will require some difficult and perhaps uncomfortable conversations and could result in a reduced police presence in our communities. But working toward racial and social justice, as well as responsible governance, makes that discussion appropriate and necessary.
Already, city and police officials are examining their operations to address existing problems and eliminate the possibility for abuse in the future.
In Norfolk, City Council voted to tweak the police department’s use-of-force policy. The interim chief in Virginia Beach pledged to reaffirm the community’s trust. And other Hampton Roads cities are reviewing policies and procedures.
These are welcome changes and reflect a willingness by public officials to not merely listen to citizens demanding reform, but to act. There are promises that internal reviews will continue, and that residents will see more in the weeks and months to come.
However, these efforts avoid the central question facing police departments: the staggering number of situations which could be better handled by individuals in other agencies rather than law enforcement.
Even police say they have too much on their plate and that they are dispatched to calls where the situation erodes, rather than improves, with the addition of a badge and gun. Law enforcement unions routinely ask public officials to winnow the scope of responsibility for police so officers can focus on the greatest threats to life and property.
Yet, when an individual is experiencing a mental health crisis or when a drug user overdoses, a call to 911 often results in a police car on the street and a uniformed officer at the door.
Usually officers can handle the situation well, relying on training to help someone struggling with mental illness or who needs a life-saving injection for resuscitation. But every call includes an element of the unknown, and officers, who are drilled to respond with force when threatened, aren’t immune to missteps.
The question, now given voice by those marching in the street, is whether police should be the most frequently used tool in the box when there are more effective ways to handle calls for help.
After all, most cities already have a variety of social programs intended to address many of those public ills. A homeless woman needs shelter, not handcuffs. Someone in a mental health crisis needs a bed, not a cell. And so on.
Police should enforce the law but by shrinking the scope of police responsibility — and adjusting the budgets accordingly — cities might better deliver a measured response commensurate to the problem, whatever it may be.
What’s more, it may be necessary to rethink police budgets as the coronavirus pandemic swings a wrecking ball to municipal finances. Cities will have to wring the most out of every dollar and find ways to do more with less.
Police officers feel they are under attack from all sides right now and law enforcement may see calls to “defund the police” as a direct assault on their public service as well as their livelihood. But what this movement asks is how best to achieve public safely, and how to balance law enforcement with deterrence and prevention.
This can be an opportunity for communities to help police by reducing the demands placed on them. It means people who need help will receive the appropriate assistance targeted to the situation, which should lead to better outcomes.
That’s good for officers, good for citizens and advances the cause of racial justice. Ultimately, that makes it a subject more than worthy of serious, sober discussion.