A New York Times article suggests that re-funding police may not reduce crime in American cities - in it, experts interviewed believe other measures would be more effective. It’s been over a year since the ‘defund the police’ movement took off, when state and local governments diverted funding from their police departments in wake of the murder George Floyd. Since defunding its police department, Portland is having its most violent year on record. Last week, the mayor of Portland announced a plan to hire 200 officers. Meanwhile, mayoral candidates in Seattle and Atlanta are gaining support for their promises to expand their city’s police force. I spoke with Ronal Serpas, Former Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, about the article and if there’s such a thing as too many police officers.
It appears the questions asked in this article are vague and not really explaining what needs to happen with refunding the police, would you agree?
I almost feel sorry for members of today's modern journalism. They have 1500 or 2000 words to explain one of the most complex systems in the free world, which is the criminal justice system, crime fighting and rehabilitation. If you ask questions properly on a poll, you can get the results you want. When people ask these kinds of questions, and then offer that as a full explanation, that is just misleading to the readers. You and I are aware of a group called the Criminal Justice Expert Panel. They said more police can reduce crime, particularly if you put them in the right places at the right time. That group also said more social services could help reduce crime, but they've to be put in the right places and doing the right things. Police are not the lone soldiers in this war of trying to make people feel safe in their homes. It's a complex task, but articles like that offer nothing of value.
We’re seeing more articles like this, that are characterizing crime to be mutually exclusive to police, when it’s not.
I think you and I both have been on record hundreds of times, talking about meaningful criminal justice reform. Believing in rehabilitation, not punishing people because they're poor, that has nothing to do with citizens' rights to not be afraid to walk the streets at night. I really want to make this point clear - crime data lags way behind public perception, because the public is feeling something the day it happens, but it takes time for researchers to actually find something in a poll. If Gallup says they found out that there's been a 34% increase in people in this country who believe that the country's more dangerous, then they've been feeling that a lot longer than when Gallup discovered it. This article ignores that fact. That's why articles like this are more like an editorial opinion, disguised as journalism.
It also feels like this article assumes any negative police interaction with the public is the fault of the police.
At the end of the day, police officers have run to gunshots on Bourbon Street three times in the last six months and police officers in Harvey and Avondale are out there working every day to satisfy people in their community… how many more polls do we need to read from all sources of polling showing that Americans want more police? The liberal leaning and conservative leaning research is finding the same thing, that people don't support defunding police and minority communities want more police and better policing.
