The MYTH of Police Defunding: Why the US Government Doesn't Want to Cut Police Budgets

Overview: This article explores the misconception that the US government wants to defund the police. It clarifies that the federal government does not control police budgets, which are set by local governments. Additionally, the article examines the potential dire consequences of defunding the police, including increased criminal activity, and argues against the idea that social workers or mental health professionals could fully replace police services.

Government Control Over Police Budgets

The US government does not have direct control over police budgets. Instead, the funding of local police departments is determined by local governments, including cities, towns, villages, and counties. This decentralized control means that the federal government has no power to directly influence these budgets.

Local governments have discretion over how they allocate funds within their jurisdictions. They do not need to follow federal instructions, and the federal government is not interested in interfering with their local governance. This independence underscores the complexity of addressing issues related to police funding and reform.

The Fallacy of Defunding the Police

The idea of defunding the police is often presented as a solution to systemic issues, but it is rooted in several misconceptions. Specifically, defunding the police is not a viable or practical approach to enhancing public safety.

Current Scarcity in Police Resources

It is widely acknowledged that the current state of police forces can handle only routine tasks and barely manage crises. Given the resource constraints, defunding police would lead to a further reduction in their capacity to address both routine and escalating situations.

To illustrate, during the past four months, police forces have been stretched to their limits, handling both regular duties and extraordinary circumstances. During so-called “peaceful protests,” for instance, the number of crimes unrelated to the protests skyrocketed, often left unaddressed, exacerbating the challenge for police forces.

Enhancement vs. Replacement

Some advocate for reallocating police funds to mental health professionals and social workers. While the idea of mental health and social services playing a more active role in community support is commendable, the fundamental issue is that existing police forces are already overwhelmed with their current duties. Augmenting police with additional support is necessary, but merely redirecting funds will not provide a sustainable solution.

Past Missteps and Lessons Learned

The historical context of funding decisions reveals unintended consequences. For example, the deinstitutionalization of mental health facilities during the 1980s was motivated by the belief that it would provide fairer treatment for the mentally ill. However, this policy shift resulted in an increased burden on law enforcement as they were forced to address the needs of the mentally ill who were now without institutional support.

Politicians in major cities have been criticized for their actions. They illustrated a disconnect between rhetoric and action by calling for defunding while failing to establish parallel support systems such as mental health professionals and social workers. The reality is that these systemic issues demand long-term strategic planning and sustained commitment from all levels of government.

Conclusion

Defunding the police is not a realistic or effective method to improve public safety. Local governments control these budgets independently of federal oversight. Redirecting funds without a parallel increase in support services would likely lead to a surge in crime. The key is to improve resource allocation and coordination between various community support services, including law enforcement, mental health professionals, and social workers. A holistic approach is the only way to achieve lasting positive change.