Can someone explain “defund” the police vs police reform?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
Police are terrible at dealing with rape victims, and solving rapes. Heck, police are often rapists themselves: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbsoml&ref=bffbsoml&fbclid=IwAR0S_1RgZTeIadOMkG1RiPqLPHcl0VvIsE5oh0nmjNLlDHgDxNmw4lHkK8U Our current system does not work for rape victims, so threatening women with "what will you do about rapes?" isn't going to work. |
Anonymous
You still have not identified any other alternative to protecting women. And saying "police are often rapists themselves" is bs. "Often"? really? show me some statistics and not some anecdote. |
Anonymous
DP. Others on this thread did. |
Anonymous
Social workers and EMTs? Is that it? |
Anonymous
Rape is predominantly reported after the fact. If an attacker is inside the home with a victim, the police bring in a crisis team. They're not busting down the door to grab the attacker because there is too much risk to the victim. |
Anonymous
Centers to help women leave their abusive SOs and live on their own, job training assistance, child care, etc. |
Anonymous
Okay. So nothing? Rapists walk free. |
Anonymous
And crisis response professionals, mental health workers, de-escalation trained civilians, firefighters, and domestic violence advocates. Look, I realize that you think criminals are hiding in the bushes waiting for police abolition so that they can break into your suburban house and steal your stand mixer, but that isn’t reality. |
Anonymous
Virtually all rapists already walk free. |
Anonymous
Cops don't "protect women." They investigate after a crime, absolutely. That would still happen. But instead of expecting all restorative work to happen through the police or even the larger justice system, which it doesn't, reallocate some of that money to assist underfunded rape crisis centers and other community-based organizations that are equipped to handle it. But this notion of cops swooping in to stop a rape in progress is laughable. The closest you can come to that is the situation where the two students pulled Brock Turner off Chanel Miller. And people still, as PP said, put her through hell with all the "what did she do to deserve it" BS. So spare me the "what about rape victims" speech. No one gives a crap about them until they're a convenient argument. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
When I lived in Baltimore, the police dept was investigated because officers were refusing to even take reports of rape-so not only did they not investigate or solve crimes, if a woman showed up wanting to give a statement, officers would just say no. We the people pay the salary and we get nothing but harassment and humiliation in return. |
Anonymous
|
Many people are using words like "defund" and "abolish" to describe what are actually reforms/changes to the police and idea of policing. Words matter. Most Americans are not going to engage in a thought exercise to understand words like "defund" and "abolish" in ways that seemingly run in contradiction to their conventional definitions.
Defund: prevent from continuing to receive funds. Abolish: formally put an end to. Again, words matter. There are significant political implications for how these concepts around the police are understood and received by the broader American public. In absolute terms, "defunding" or "abolishing" the police is going to cost the Democrats votes in November. |
Anonymous
You're an uncompromising cynic and that's okay...you don't get it because you don't WANT to get it. As many have said - nobody is suggesting getting rid of cops altogether. Why you can't seem to grasp this despite it being repeated again and again is beyond me. In any case I'll make a meager attempt to break it down in simple terms for you anyway. So, first of all you need to understand the truths about rape. Three-fourths of rapes are committed by a man the woman knows. So unless cops come along as chaperones from now on there's nothing they can do to prevent some jerk a woman willingly chose to go out with from committing date rape. As for the other 1/4 of rapes committed by random creeps hiding in bushes and breaking into women's homes that they've been stalking for months guess what... Unless cops are going to personally shadow every woman on the street they can't be there on the scene like Superman to stop those creepers from committing their heinous acts. I don't know the stats but I'd be willing to wager less than even the way our system is set up now the cops show up after-the-fact to try and catch the guy not before to prevent the crime. So what are we doing to prevent the crime? That's where redirecting funding goes. There is evidence to suggest that some prevention programs might reduce men's actual sexual aggression. You know where those programs could be really useful - college campuses (you know a huge percentage of rapes are committed on college campuses, right?) and prisons (you know rapists are infamous for being repeat offenders, right?) So how bout this...how about you stop looking for holes in the idea for a split second and actually stop and think about what is being suggested in terms of the reforms and reallocation's being suggested. Nobody's taking away cops. (Yeah let me say it again since that simple point keeps slipping past you). The idea is to reinvest in social services to proactively address the issues and environments that make our society to crime-ridden to begin with. Which is a better investment...$100 to send 5 cops out to a rape scene after victims have been violated or $1 to have a counselor teach men not to act on their sexual aggression and reducing the number of rapes altogether? |