Can someone explain “defund” the police vs police reform?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Granted, "defund the police" is poor branding for what is good policy, but people are taking what it means way too far. It does mean trading social workers for police. It means at the very least smartly rethinking which situations require armed response and which do not. Peace officers with arrest powers are more appropriate in vastly more cases than armed response, which by definition escalates situations and empowers poorly trained police to shoot themselves out of situations they could and should think themselves out of. That's a start.

We already have that.
311 and hot lines.

What is ''peace officers''? Sheep for thugs to slaughter?
How a peace officer will arrest a guy that will turn violent out of the blue?
How it will be sorted out what person is peaceful enough for peace officers? By dispatcher? By sending four teams to the scene - medics, social workers, peace officers, police officers?

And most importantly, who is going to foot the bill having all these people saving one thug useless to a society in a first place?

If you find that you don't understand how something works

that's reflective of your ignorance of it

not that it doesn't work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Granted, "defund the police" is poor branding for what is good policy, but people are taking what it means way too far. It does mean trading social workers for police. It means at the very least smartly rethinking which situations require armed response and which do not. Peace officers with arrest powers are more appropriate in vastly more cases than armed response, which by definition escalates situations and empowers poorly trained police to shoot themselves out of situations they could and should think themselves out of. That's a start.

We already have that.
311 and hot lines.

What is ''peace officers''? Sheep for thugs to slaughter?
How a peace officer will arrest a guy that will turn violent out of the blue?
How it will be sorted out what person is peaceful enough for peace officers? By dispatcher? By sending four teams to the scene - medics, social workers, peace officers, police officers?

And most importantly, who is going to foot the bill having all these people saving one thug useless to a society in a first place?

You can ask all those questions about "who will decide" and then have the unmitigated gall to decide for yourself who is useless to society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

That's interesting that you disagree with data showing the negative effects of jail time. Jail time does not reform people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

It actually doesn't, but thanks for playing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

That's interesting that you disagree with data showing the negative effects of jail time. Jail time does not reform people.

You're going to love the prison abolition movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

My understanding is that they wouldn't send a social worker in lieu of a cop if someone is calling for a cop. It's that they would beef up services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to wrap them in community-based services and resources so that the cops aren't needed. That the abuser is getting the help that they need so that they aren't arrested, lose their job, etc. and that a victim of domestic violence is getting the help that they need, healing services, job, counseling, whatever. In other words, try to take the cops out of the day-to-day response to DV, but if a crisis/emergency occurs, that they still respond.

Sure, you do know DV is one of the most dangerous calls a cop goes on, but let's send a 28 year old female social worker instead.

How does that at all respond to the post? Which says they would NOT send a social worker if someone calls 911? That they would send a COP, as REQUESTED.


The pp specifically referred to social workers as "first responders" in these situations. And, as others have explained, you can "Defund the Police" because there will be other government workers to take the response to things like domestic violence incidents. So, you're saying that the social workers would not actually be "first responders?" How does this "Defund the Police" thing work if we aren't reducing the number of calls the Police respond to?
It will result in fewer calls answered by police and citizens getting better armed.

It's amazing how enthusiastically progressives work against law abiding citizens in order to please criminals. You can't make a cookie out of a dog doo-doo. It just not happening. Criminals will be criminals.

Well, whatever, Trump till 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

That's interesting that you disagree with data showing the negative effects of jail time. Jail time does not reform people.

You're going to love the prison abolition movement.

DP. Norway's nice prisons have recidivism rates between 15-20%. Our mean American prisons have recidivism rates between 60-90%.

[Anonymous]

I am lucky enough to have witnessed some of the serious discussions around this playing out in real time over the last two years or so and the serious policy proposals being discussed by academics and activists are so nuanced and thoughtful that it makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

What do do about intimate partner violence? There are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around that but you wouldn't know it from the folks using battered women as a talking point on these threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

That's interesting that you disagree with data showing the negative effects of jail time. Jail time does not reform people.

You're going to love the prison abolition movement.

DP. Norway's nice prisons have recidivism rates between 15-20%. Our mean American prisons have recidivism rates between 60-90%.

THIS. We can defund the police all we want, but until we commit to ending the incarceration crisis, we're won't begin to heal this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Jail time works wonders. Much better than an army of people preaching the abuser to stop abuse.

That's interesting that you disagree with data showing the negative effects of jail time. Jail time does not reform people.

You're going to love the prison abolition movement.

DP. Norway's nice prisons have recidivism rates between 15-20%. Our mean American prisons have recidivism rates between 60-90%.

DP. Not all of them. Virginia has a recidivism rate of 23%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am lucky enough to have witnessed some of the serious discussions around this playing out in real time over the last two years or so and the serious policy proposals being discussed by academics and activists are so nuanced and thoughtful that it makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

What do do about intimate partner violence? There are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around that but you wouldn't know it from the folks using battered women as a talking point on these threads.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lucky enough to have witnessed some of the serious discussions around this playing out in real time over the last two years or so and the serious policy proposals being discussed by academics and activists are so nuanced and thoughtful that it makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

What do do about intimate partner violence? There are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around that but you wouldn't know it from the folks using battered women as a talking point on these threads.

Exactly.

PP who asked who will respond to DV calls. I asked that question because they are some of the most dangerous calls for first responders, not because I am “using battered women as a talking point.” I’m glad to hear there are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around it. Maybe you could share some of the proposed ideas? My jurisdiction has a social worker respond to DV calls, but only once police have secured the scene (similar to fire dept/EMS response).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lucky enough to have witnessed some of the serious discussions around this playing out in real time over the last two years or so and the serious policy proposals being discussed by academics and activists are so nuanced and thoughtful that it makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

What do do about intimate partner violence? There are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around that but you wouldn't know it from the folks using battered women as a talking point on these threads.

Exactly.

PP who asked who will respond to DV calls. I asked that question because they are some of the most dangerous calls for first responders, not because I am “using battered women as a talking point.” I’m glad to hear there are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around it. Maybe you could share some of the proposed ideas? My jurisdiction has a social worker respond to DV calls, but only once police have secured the scene (similar to fire dept/EMS response).

DV calls are dangerous because the victim often doesn’t want the police there by the time they arrive. Or they don’t want the breadwinner arrested. This is very easily solved by not sending a cop in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lucky enough to have witnessed some of the serious discussions around this playing out in real time over the last two years or so and the serious policy proposals being discussed by academics and activists are so nuanced and thoughtful that it makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

What do do about intimate partner violence? There are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around that but you wouldn't know it from the folks using battered women as a talking point on these threads.

Exactly.

PP who asked who will respond to DV calls. I asked that question because they are some of the most dangerous calls for first responders, not because I am “using battered women as a talking point.” I’m glad to hear there are serious and thoughtful discussions happening around it. Maybe you could share some of the proposed ideas? My jurisdiction has a social worker respond to DV calls, but only once police have secured the scene (similar to fire dept/EMS response).

NP, but this article does a decent job highlighting some of the conversations. I'm not sure I agree with the restorative justice piece; it's an approach I continue to struggle with. But the rest of this article gives an overview of where these conversations have been for some time. If you're actually curious.