- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
Thousands march in Washington for the death of George Floyd 3:56
(CNN) - There is a growing group of dissidents who believe that Americans can survive without public order as we know it. And they think Americans could even be better off without it.
The solution to police brutality and racial inequalities in police custody is simple, supporters say: simply withdraw funds from the police.
READ: They seek to withdraw funds and dismantle the Minneapolis police department
It's as simple as it sounds: instead of funding a police department, a considerable part of a city's budget is invested in communities, especially marginalized communities, where much of the patrol occurs.
The concept had been a buzz for years, particularly after protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, though it seemed unlikely in 2014.
But it is becoming an emergency. With the death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of the police and nationwide protests demanding reform, at least one city is considering dissolving its police force entirely.
Does withdrawing funds from the police mean dismantling the police?
That depends on who you ask, said Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and a senior research and policy associate at the Community Resource Center for Security and Accountability.
Some supporters of the withdrawal want to reallocate some, but not all, funds from police departments to social services. Some want to withdraw all police funds and dissolve the departments.
The concept exists on a spectrum, but both interpretations focus on reinventing what public safety looks like, he said.
It also means dismantling the idea that police officers are "public custodians" intended to protect communities. McHarris said that many blacks and other people of color do not feel protected by the police.
Protesters amid tear gas near the White House.
Why withdraw the funds from the police?
McHarris says that withdrawing funds ends the culture of punishment in the criminal justice system. And it is one of the only options that local governments have not attempted in their efforts to end deaths in police custody.
Workouts and body cameras have not made the change protesters want.
McHarris grew up in a neighborhood where there were "real and discernible threats of armed violence," and said he never thought of calling the police, that was for his own safety. Instead, he trusted neighbors to help him overcome threats of danger.
What if, he said, those people could provide the same support they showed you full time?
To explain why he supports the idea, Isaac Bryan, the director of UCLA's Center for Black Policy, points out the story: Public order in the south began as slave patrol, a team of vigilantes hired to capture escaped slaves. . Then, when slavery was abolished, the police enforced Jim Crow laws, even for the slightest infractions.
And today, the police disproportionately use force against blacks, and blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted.
"That story is rooted in our law enforcement," said Bryan.
Police arrest a protester on Fifth Avenue during a march in Manhattan.
Where would those funds go?
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, said withdrawing funds from the police means reallocating those funds to support people and services in underserved communities.
Withdrawing funds from public order "means that we are reducing the capacity of public order to have resources that harm our communities," Cullors said in an interview with WBUR, the Boston public radio station. "It is about reinvesting those dollars in black communities, communities that have been deeply dispossessed."
LOOK : Stories of black citizens and police brutality in the United States
Those dollars can be returned to social services for mental health, domestic violence, and homeless people, among others. Police are often the first to respond to all three, he said.
Those dollars can also be used to finance schools, hospitals, housing and food in those communities: "everything we know that increases security," said McHarris.
New York Police officers formed after arresting multiple protesters when the curfew passed.
Why dismantle the police?
Dismantling the police falls at the most radical end of the spectrum of police divestment, but it is gaining ground.
MPD150, a community advocacy organization in Minneapolis, is focused on abolishing the local police. His work has been featured since George Floyd's death in police custody in Minneapolis.
"People who respond to crises in our community should be the best equipped people to deal with those crises," says the organization.
Instead of "firearm strangers," the organization says, the first responders should be mental health providers, social workers, victim advocates and other members of the community with less visible roles.
READ : Seven cases of violent deaths of black citizens that have generated large protests in the US
He argues that law and order are not backed by public order, but through education, employment, and mental health services, which are often denied to low-income communities. MPD150 and other police abolition organizations want broader access to all three areas.
Protesters kneel in front of police officers in New York.
Would withdrawing funds from the police lead to a spike in violent crime?
Withdrawing funds from the police has not been done on a large scale before, making it difficult to say whether or not violent crime would increase.
But there is evidence that less vigilance can lead to less crime. A 2017 report, which focused on several weeks from 2014 to 2015, when the New York Police Department deliberately withdrew "proactive surveillance," found that there were 2,100 fewer crime reports during that time.
The study defines proactive surveillance as the “systematic and aggressive application of public order in light of minor violations” and a greater police presence in areas where “crime is anticipated”.
That is exactly the kind of activity that supporters of divestment from the police want to end.
Police line in Minneapolis.
Will the withdrawal of funds happen to the police?
It is radical for an American city to operate without public order, but it is already being discussed in Minneapolis.
City Council member Steve Fletcher, in a Twitter thread, said council members are discussing "what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start again with a nonviolent outreach and public safety capability oriented to the community".
"We can totally reimagine what public safety means, the skills we are recruiting for, the tools we need and don't need," he wrote. "We can invest in cultural competence and training in mental health, de-escalation and conflict resolution."
However, withdrawing funds is simpler than dissolving, and at least one mayor has already taken that step. After Californians denounced a proposal to increase the Los Angeles Police Department's budget to $ 1.86 billion, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agreed to cut $ 100-150 million from the proposed funds.
It is not a significant dent in the budget, but it is proof that officials are listening, Bryan said.
"A week ago, withdrawing funds from the police would have sounded like a crazy idea," he said. "Now we are talking about it. Withdrawing funds from the police entirely may still sound far-fetched, but next week it could be different. ”
Police