We can only feel horror and shock at the indefensible murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Over the last fortnight, political discussion has transformed from dealing with coronavirus - which hasn’t gone away - to police brutality and racism in America. I think this case in particular has gained far greater traction because the murder was recorded. The killing because of an officer placing his knee on Floyd’s neck cannot be denied.
Rightly, Black Lives Matter campaigners point out this is one case among many. Numerous other examples of indefensible killings, where the individuals are often unarmed, unlikely and sometimes unable to cause harm, slip under the radar. It is, and I am ashamed to write this sentence, the same with school shootings. Primary school children in America are trained in their response to a shooter in the same way schools in Japan install training for responding to an earthquake. Edmund Burke once said ‘the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing’. In the spirit of this message, there have been calls for action. While protests have taken place, which are both a vital part of a free society and a key component of political activism, they must fit alongside a coherent policy response. Yet one of those policies, the one that, to me at least, has shone through most clearly, should cause immense worry. According to CBS News, Minneapolis City Council plan to defund the police force. On cardboard placards and banners, this was a key message throughout from protestors. Though opposed by Mayor Jacob Frey, council members including Jeremiah Ellison and leader Lisa Bender announced the police department would be defunded. Instead, money would go towards ‘community initiatives’ that prioritised safety. These initiatives are a rather nebulous phrase, yet they are a perfect demonstration of why abolishing the local police force is an incorrect solution. I want police reform across America. Though a state, rather than federal issue, all the world can see that both the presence of an armed police force combined with racist attitudes has left many feeling unsafe. The police are meant to provide protection and enforce justice; as I’ve said, there is an endless list where this hasn’t happened. I spoke on my radio show about the ideal all campaigners should strive for is equality before the law, where your position in society doesn’t affect whether you are prosecuted or exonerated for a crime. But reform is not the same as abolition. The situation regarding Minneapolis City Council remains me of the UK’s national conversation about the NHS. Instead of a reasoned discussion accepting the NHS’ failures, need for reform and the future of healthcare in an ageing society, the debate over health revolves only around money. At the last election, both Labour and the Tories only focused on who could promise the greatest amount of cash. It treated the British people’s intelligence with contempt. The same is now the case in Minneapolis. Again, instead of a reasoned debate on reform and transformation which involves the local community, the only solution is monetary. An assumption is made that money (or the lack of it) will solve the problem. Simply get rid of the police and individuals will be far safer. This view couldn’t be more wrong. One of my favourite topics in A-level sociology was crime and deviance. In those lessons, it became obvious that equality before the law was sadly not the case, with white collar individuals far more likely to escape prosecution and punishment. We also learnt about methods of dealing with crime. Call me someone who sits on the fence, but I support aspects of both left realist and right realist theory for reducing levels of crime. Left realism: it seems this is the approach Minneapolis council want to adopt. Those who advocate defunding the police state the money should be targeted towards different areas of government which will, indirectly, make crime less likely. I have no problem with councils spending more money, if it is spent well. Indeed, when it comes to economic policy, I am probably more Keynesian that most of America. Early intervention, whether in school or life chances, for the most vulnerable, seems a worthy and welcome ideal. Whether it’s Sure Start centres in the UK or investment in American education, reducing the likelihood of teenage nihilism leading to crime is a worthy investment that will probably reduce costs to the taxpayer in the long term. However, this is not enough by itself. My slightly more authoritarian side does support aspects of right realism for dealing with crime. The ‘broken windows’ theory, which believes that only by dealing with low level crime is it possible to prevent more serious crime, deserves to be enforced by police. If an area gains a reputation where crime is unchecked, low level crime will turn into violent crime. Thus more individuals will suffer and the cost to taxpayers will rocket. A combination of both early intervention and thoroughly dealing with crime as it happens must be applied. We need not look only to the council for a response. As I say, I’m pleased that protestors are being to form a policy platform that can be scrutinised and held accountable like any political party. An abolition of the police is contradictory to human nature. Again, I sit on the fence here, but I believe humans can be good and evil. We have the ability for compassion, kindness and altruism. But we can also be selfish, vile and, yes, evil. A proposal to abolish the individuals who enforce the law fails to account for individuals who, no matter the amount of early intervention, will still commit criminal offences. Yet, according to the CBS News article, a speaker for the movement said individuals would rely on friends, family or neighbours instead of the police in an emergency. This is both foolish, impractical and delusional. Practically, individuals may have no family in the vicinity, live in an isolated area or have no relationship with their neighbours. This also forgets the state has unrivalled powers and abilities to deal with crime. Now, the individuals here may believe these powers are too great, but that doesn’t mean individuals alone can or should enact those powers by themselves. I believe the scepticism towards the police reflects the different attitudes towards the state in the UK and the USA. America is built on revolution against the British Empire. Talk of the ‘American Dream’ has always been based around families operating independently of state interference. Indeed, the second amendment is based around individuals having the right to keep and bear arms in case of state encroachment. In the UK, our attitude towards the state and authoritarian measures, demonstrated not least in the War on Terror and recent lockdown, is far more benevolent. And that’s before you mention the complete contrast over gun ownership. The abolition of the police represents a depressing level of defeatism. It suggests that reform is impossible and only revolution is the answer. That is not a coherent policy in itself. The proposals for replacements have not been thought through and fail to account for criminals that clearly exist. It is also built on the assumption that the only role of police is to respond to crime. Yet they should also prevent crime from happening in the first place. Deterrence is as important as retribution and rehabilitation. In the UK, the depressing absence of police patrolling on foot has meant that, whenever I see a police car, my assumption is that a crime has already taken place. The skills and powers of the police force should be better utilised to prevent crime from happening, not simply to deal with the aftermath. What is the purpose of law? Surely it is to find shared values about what a society believes is correct and what should be disapproved. While the legal must be made distinct from the moral, that so much attention is given to politics, the individuals who decide these laws, clearly demonstrates time given to who has power and what those powers are. If there were no laws, there would be no such thing as crime. Just as a crime shouldn’t be legalised because a number of individuals break the law (yes, I’m talking about drugs) so an institution shouldn’t be abolished because it requires wide-ranging reform. In the end, a city without a police force will likely follow two outcomes. Either a descend into anarchy shall take place, where every individual decides their own rules, with anyone who gets in the way removed. In this circumstance, Hobbes’ state of nature will have truly come to pass. Or a hierarchy of obedience will become all too clear, with one’s economic status determining their quality of life. An absence of individuals who were meant to protect our freedoms leads to an absence of freedoms. Class divides will become stronger that ever, with the rich and privileged able to live in gated communities with private security. I want freedom, liberty and equality before the law. All these worthy ideas will only be rolled back by the absence of any police. Indeed, it is those ideas that would end up facing permanent abolition from our way of life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|