• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defunding the police

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Something worth looking into is the perverse relationship cities have with for profit prison systems which encourage mass incarceration for even non-violent offenses. Do Private Prison Contracts Fuel Mass Incarceration?
The article presents no analysis of causation.
For example....
The study examined 62 private prisons contracts in 21 states. It found that the majority of these contracts guarantee that the state will supply enough prisoners to keep between 80 and 100 percent of the private prisons’ beds filled. If the state fails to fulfill this ‘bed guarantee’, it must pay a fine to the company running the prisons – in effect, paying for each prison bed regardless of whether it holds a prisoner. This incentivizes states to send prisoners to private prisons rather than state-run prisons in order to meet the bed guarantee, regardless of the prisons’ distance from families, their security level, or health conditions.
To incentivize sending convicts to private prisons could
simply mean that fewer are sent to government prisons.
In doing so, this would reduce government's costs in
their own prisons.
This contractual relationship doesn't appear to cause
the justice industrial complex (JIC) to want to imprison
more people.
In effect, this ‘bed guarantee’ payment structure penalizes taxpayers for low incarceration rates. This is a system that hurts both taxpayer and prisoner. Bed guarantees funnel taxpayer money into private prison profits at a time when states should see overall cost savings from successful attempts at curbing crime. Instead, when states reduce incarceration rates below lockup quotas, they compensate companies’ lost revenue at the per day rate, adding up to millions of dollars in fines.
These are simply more detailed claims, not justification
of the larger claim.
I see a different set of problems....
Too much criminalization of harmless behavior, too much
reliance upon imprisonment, too much violence in prison
(both private & government), unfairness of the bail system,
government treating fines & penalties as a profit center, etc.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
I'm sure this has been done to death but considering I haven't had my say we shall do it again!!

What are your opinions on defunding the police?

I'm pretty sure we have this over in the UK as well but obviously not to the same extent as america

"Defunding" is misleading as a term. What activists are asking for is a re-allocation of city budgets to take money that the police dept really doesn't need and is spending money buying military equipment with, and giving the funds to social service agencies. For example, police shouldn't be dispatched to mental health calls, mental health professionals should be, and they need funding. That's just one example.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm sure this has been done to death but considering I haven't had my say we shall do it again!!

What are your opinions on defunding the police?

I'm pretty sure we have this over in the UK as well but obviously not to the same extent as america
It should have been called 'Refunding the police' which would have been more descriptive and gone over better with the public. What they are requesting is a change to policing...more social workers and fewer skull bashers.

We've covered it before, but we're not done.
Instead of "defunding", it should be "augmenting" the police.
Let social workers, nurses, & other types deal with calls
more appropriate to their expertise.
Yes. Just saying what they meant would have been much better instead of being mysterious and floaty.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
What are your opinions on defunding the police?

Depends on why society determines why police are needed.. They are there obviously, as mediators between individuals and a wrong. So I guess the theory is, that the public can't be trusted to mediate their own issues. This is another angle on the whole thing
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
"Defunding" is misleading as a term. What activists are asking for is a re-allocation of city budgets to take money that the police dept really doesn't need and is spending money buying military equipment with, and giving the funds to social service agencies. For example, police shouldn't be dispatched to mental health calls, mental health professionals should be, and they need funding. That's just one example.

The more I am reading of you guys post the more I am thinking a definition of policing to more protective and have more of a connection between frontline services. For example police are there for protection and to protect the public. In terms of mental health call outs they should be in certain mental health call outs, to be there to support the social worker who goes in to assess the patient if it is dangerous, especially if it is to involuntary place them in hospital. They should also be there to support support workers who's vulnerable patients have absconded and they need support to bring them back or cannot leave their house due to other responsibilities.

Policing from what I have heard needs to be broader in America and needs to have stronger ties with other services with constables being hired specifically to bridge the gap between them. Better communication means better understanding which leads to better outcomes for the service users and society. Does that mean less funding or that funding they have already is relocated to training and jobs that support these kinds of changes is for politicians and (hopefully) appropriate professionals within the role to figure out, But merely taking money away won't solve the problem u need to integrate policing within front line services and give a clear protective role to them.
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
Depends on why society determines why police are needed.. They are there obviously, as mediators between individuals and a wrong. So I guess the theory is, that the public can't be trusted to mediate their own issues. This is another angle on the whole thing
As a care worker for about 11 years I have had alot of experince with people being unable to do this I have seen people blantatly lie about serious issues to punish a partner, to a random person on a street attacking somone and getting a social worker to their door for something that is observably not true. Unfortunately there is a minority in our society that use services as weapons so yes sometimes mediation is necessary.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
The more I am reading of you guys post the more I am thinking a definition of policing to more protective and have more of a connection between frontline services. For example police are there for protection and to protect the public. In terms of mental health call outs they should be in certain mental health call outs, to be there to support the social worker who goes in to assess the patient if it is dangerous, especially if it is to involuntary place them in hospital. They should also be there to support support workers who's vulnerable patients have absconded and they need support to bring them back or cannot leave their house due to other responsibilities.

Policing from what I have heard needs to be broader in America and needs to have stronger ties with other services with constables being hired specifically to bridge the gap between them. Better communication means better understanding which leads to better outcomes for the service users and society. Does that mean less funding or that funding they have already is relocated to training and jobs that support these kinds of changes is for politicians and (hopefully) appropriate professionals within the role to figure out, But merely taking money away won't solve the problem u need to integrate policing within front line services and give a clear protective role to them.

The police themselves resent having to act as social workers. Other agencies need to step in in these cases.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I myself am a student social worker, currently on placement in a mental health setting in the UK. I would like to say that social workers are not a replacement for the police, in fact we often work alongside them when criminal proceedings happen in a multi-disciplinary setting. This means we need both a strong police presence and a strong social work presence more money definitely should be given to social services but NOT at the expense of the police.

Tell me if they take money away from the police where do you think the cutbacks will be? I'd assume training and support wouldn't you? The solution is more money being put into front line works!

Also yes it's insane that homelessness is illegal but it isn't the police that makes the laws.

I see .. I'm not sure if your posts will , if I continue to read them, cohere with the north american political situation , now that I read that you are in the UK. I happen to like to the U.K., but from what I understand, there isn't that much symmetry between our policing institution and yours. You might notice that this past summer, our country was inflamed with protests against police brutality for example, where there are stories of police shooting rubber bullets right into people's faces, for example. Our police are quite armed, sometimes with military grade stuff, unlike yours, who, if I understand it correctly, aren't armed.

Now I recognize that maybe sometimes a level of force is sometimes necessary, but in our country it seems far overused. Encounters with police have often left me quite uncomfortable, and I got screamed at once because I gesticulated. To give some further detail, I am said to be on the autistic spectrum and... social cues sometimes elude me
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The police themselves resent having to act as social workers. Other agencies need to step in in these cases.
Do you know one of the most dangerous calls a LEO can receive? Give you a hint.....domestic distrubance.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Do you know one of the most dangerous calls a LEO can receive? Give you a hint.....domestic distrubance.

If the police are going to deal with that, are they trained to go into that situation with a mindset of deescalation, and if they aren't, doesn't that contribute to likelihood of it becoming deadly?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
If by defund the police we mean involve more social workers, demilitarizimg the public facing sector (not SWAT, or other regimented police intervention), removing the for-profit prison system, as well as implementation of a prison reform system where we focus on rehabilitation as opposed to crime-punishment, I am all for it.

Edit: Never once have I heard "defund the police" to mean hire less/get rid of police, outside of maybe from inconsequential people on FB.

Totally agree!
 

Suave

Simulated character
We've covered it before, but we're not done.
Instead of "defunding", it should be "augmenting" the police.
Let social workers, nurses, & other types deal with calls
more appropriate to their expertise.

I fully concur with your person-kindly approach to augmenting the police. I'd like us to convey this concept of augmenting the police to our community activist leaders. If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I fully concur with your person-kindly approach to augmenting the police. I'd like us to convey this concept of augmenting the police to our community activist leaders. If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.
I'm a fan of justice, but not big on empathy.
(Challenged in that area.) But we can still
be on the same side.
 
Top