- Position‹2 of 3›
- Joe Biden has the better approach to Policing
Biden's proposals include preventing choke holds, preventing 'weapons of war' being acquired by local police agencies, and creating a national use-of-force standard.
The argument
Former Vice President Joe Biden calls for immediate action during a time where action is required. Current protests across America call for police reform. Taking immediate action will contribute to easing tensions surrounding how the police operate, such as banning chokeholds. This policy works to ensure that the circumstances leading to the death of George Floyd do not repeat themselves. Biden also upholds other policies which would immediately reform the police, including the creation of a national police oversight commission and ceasing the transfer of “weapons of war” to the police. A commission that oversees the police force will reduce the likelihood of police officers violating the proposed reforms. A theoretical commission ensures that the police do not engage in the use of excessive force. If a police officer does use excessive force, then they would be subject to discipline. To fuel this plan, Biden intends to raise more money to fund reform efforts.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Progressive activists, however, feel that raising money to further fund the police will not be enough. Alicia Garza, one of the cofounders of the Black Lives Matter movement, said that while Biden’s plans are an instrumental step forward, the allocation of our money in cities and states across the U.S. is critical. She went on to say that, “our budgets, from city to Congress are bloated with police funding”.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A list of proposals is not an approach in operation, and most of the measures named are matters for states, cities and individual departments rather than for a president — chokehold rules sit in departmental policy and state law. [Rejecting P2] The effects are stated as certainties: oversight bodies exist in many jurisdictions with mixed records, and whether discipline actually follows depends on contracts and arbitration that the premise never mentions. The conclusion is comparative and rests on speed alone, while the counter shows that acting quickly is compatible with disagreement about direction — its objection being that the proposals do not go far enough.