The only viable option is to Defund the Police

The argument

The police force is at the center of what is arguably a long-standing issue in the United States. Following the death of George Floyd in May of 2020, law enforcement faces scrutiny for its inability to hold the officer's involved in his death accountable. Individuals who have rallied in protest claim that part of the problem is that the police as an institution is systemically racist. No amount of amending the institution would bring about the necessary changes needed to ensure public safety. As a result, protesters have called for the defunding of the police across the country. By withdrawing support from the current police force, this would allow the old system to die out, allowing for a new system that is not systemically racist to take its place. One of the proposed outlets for the withdrawn funding sees it redirected towards essential social services. These would include services tailored to job training, counseling, and violence-prevention programs. The overall goal of the movement is to see a decrease in police brutality and begin to address a long history of racism and oppression in America.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Despite how long systemic racism and oppression have been attached to the police force, defunding the police might not be the answer to this issue. Moves to abolish the police force as it stands, even defunding it, could have more negative impacts than they do positive. One would still need to consider the existence of other systemic barriers and economic inequalities that allow crime to fester. Defunding the police would drastically hinder the police's ability to keep people safe. Instead, asking inflective questions regarding future policing policies might be more productive. Other steps that would work towards lasting change include improving police transparency and accountability as well as instituting force of use standards on a federal level.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The systemic claim is supported by one difficulty — accountability following a single case — which is narrower than the conclusion needs. "No mere amendment could fix" is asserted rather than argued, and it is the load-bearing step: the case for abolition over reform has to engage the reform record, and the argument does not. [Rejecting P2] Defunding and redirecting to social services is presented as a single package when the label covers proposals ranging from shifting some calls to unarmed responders through to abolition. That reduced budgets would cut brutality is a prediction, and the support offered for it is the history already described, which establishes the problem rather than the effectiveness of the remedy. The counter's objection about response capacity goes unanswered. [Rejecting C] Moving from "the only viable option is defunding" to "neither approach is good" makes the position depend wholly on one contested remedy. A criticism of both candidates could be argued from their records and proposals directly; as written, anyone unpersuaded by defunding is given no reason to accept it.

Further reading

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/defund-the-police