Reform is necessary, but we should never defund the police

Since the tragic death of George Floyd on the 25th of May 2020, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has not been short of media attention. Despite George Floyd’s death capturing the global narrative, some have been vocal when expressing their disproval at certain characteristics of this movement, most definitely including the push to #DefundThePolice, a matter which Sir Keir Starmer has recently labelled as ‘nonsense’ in an interview with the BBC. So, what does “defunding the police” actually mean; how would it work in the real world; and is it actually plausible?

In response to Keir Starmer’s comments about defunding the police, BLM reiterated their point of view. Their statement reads as follows:

            “When we say ‘Defund the police’ we mean ‘Invest in programmes that actually keep us safe like youth services, mental health and social care, education, jobs and housing. Key Services to support the most vulnerable before they come into contact with the criminal justice system.”

Therefore, defunding the police essentially means that funds which would have been used for the police services across the UK will be redistributed elsewhere in the categories mentioned above. Some people see this concept as a ‘left-wing fantasy’ but in America especially it has quickly gained mainstream recognition. Most notably on June 7, the City Council of Minneapolis announced its plans to disband the police department in favour of a ‘holistic model of public safety’. 

Essentially, defunding the police is predicated on the belief that investing in the community and into social projects is a better deterrent to crime than criminal prosecution and prison.

Having established what ‘Defunding the police’ actually means, it is therefore important to model what this would look like in the UK. Dr. Adam Elliot-Cooper, sociologist at the University of Greenwich created a five-year model, mapping out what defunding the police in the UK could look like.

The first year included “ending the drugs policy and drugs stop and search”. Stop and search is a policy used by police officers which allows officers to question members of the public at random. This would be one of the first police policies to be abolished as BAME people are four times more likely to be stopped than a white person. Whilst this should not be the case, an argument can be made for reform instead of scrapping it altogether. Across England and Wales in 2018, around 30% of stop and searches lead to a ‘positive outcome’. A positive outcome means that action was taken against people including warning, penalties or arrest. In London 60% of positive outcomes were related to drug offences and 9% were for “weapons, points and blades”. In 2019 the number of homicides hit a 10-year high in London and there has been a surge in knife and gang related killings since 2014. Whilst stop and search is by no means the most effective way of dealing with this problem, it is still having a positive impact nevertheless. Undeniably, reform is essential in order to reduce the prejudice within the action of this policy however the policy in itself is a good policy and is under threat if the UK decided to defund the police.  

The second major stage in Dr. Elliot-Cooper’s model would be the disbanding of the Prevent agenda – a government counter-terror initiative which uses schools, universities, workplaces and other such like to identify people who have been or at risk of being radicalised. 

Prevent is a controversial government strategy which has not been short of criticism; January 2020, The Guardian reported that Extinction Rebellion, promoted by Greta Thunberg has been wrongly included on an official list of extremist organisations. Amnesty international were highly critical of this assertion which was later revoked. Despite its downfalls, Prevent is a highly valuable programme. 

Over 2,500 British institutions including schools, universities and mosques, totally to one million people have received relevant training following the guidelines set out by the Prevent agenda. The concern is that Prevent target, unfairly and prejudicially, BAME citizens, and by gathering intelligence, breach the human rights of the targets. However, figures published by the Home office casts considerable doubt on the campaign against Prevent. One example of this is that over a third of cases discussed at Channel panels do not concern Jihadi terrorism at all – a fact also true of just under 44% of those receiving Channel support. Whilst one may wrongly assume that Prevent is a source of racial prejudice and therefore targeting by the #DefundThePolice campaign, this is not the case.

In fact, one could go further and make the case for increasing the anti-terrorism budget, specifically for the Prevent agenda. The perpetrator of the 2017 Parsons Green train bombing, the leader of the 2017 London Bridge attack and his brother were known to the Prevent team. The former had been referred to Prevent through the training outlines above and the latter two were involved with schemes set out by Prevent in order to turn them away from extremism. These two cases alone would suggest that Prevent is vital part of policing in the UK and vital to the Government’s anti-terror agenda. Assuming that Dr. Adam-Elliot’s model is vaguely in line with what would happen if the UK was to defund our police service, reduction in anti-terror measures would not be a good outcome. Undeniably the anti-terror sector needs to be reformed so that racial prejudice is non-existent but again, abolition doesn’t seem to be the best answer. 

Of course, institutional racism, along with any other form of discrimination, will never be acceptable and it is undeniable that we need to re-evaluate the society we live in and have been accustomed to in recent decades. In relation to BLM’s #DefundThePolice motion, it could be said that taking away police funding is not necessarily the answer. From the few aspects from Dr. Adam Elliot-Cooper’s model I have chosen (link below), it has been proven that the police within the UK do essential work. I believe that re-evaluation and reform is a more sensible and realistic course of action. 

One last example to support this point: on the 2nd of July this year, Home Secretary, Priti Patel orchestrated, along with the National Crime Agency, the largest operation in the UK. This led to 746 arrests and more than 2 tonnes of Class A and Class B drugs being seized. This type of organised crime has crippling effects on society, the kind of affects you and I wouldn’t see. Without proper policing funding this would not have been able to happen so effectively, or at all. Therefore, it is vital that we put money towards tackling on-going and existing crime. 

Whilst the racial prejudice within the police is clear to see, this factor must be reformed in isolation as the general principle of police work is fantastic and vital to keeping our streets safe. I firmly believe that the problems that the BLM organisation wants to target and eradicate (and rightly so) are caused by the application of the principle, not the principle in itself. Therefore, reform is necessary. Increasing investment in youth services, health and social care and education is itself a fantastic idea as it targets people who may be vulnerable to a life of a crime which we want to stop right from the root but using police funding for these projects is not the answer. 

Hayden Greengrass

"English Language Grunge Flag" by Free Grunge Textures - www.freestock.ca is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Additional Reading:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qj4k4x/what-would-happen-if-we-defunded-police-in-the-uk