I was reading an article in The Atlantic this afternoon which made the case for defunding the police. While I am in no position to evaluate the argument that the police do more harm than good (on its face, that depends completely on the circumstances in an enormous number of different jurisdictions), I feel comfortable commenting on the following premises:
- Crime is the product of the environment, and can be more or less eliminated with well-funded social programs; and
- It is reasonable to expect American voters to support a program that could, if unsuccessful, cost them their lives and property.
As to #1, just consider the proliferation of crime novels from Scandinavian writers. They live in countries with abundant social programs and limited (if growing) racism, and yet . . . all those murders! Fiction or not, the books reflect a larger reality. Crime is not simply created by adverse social conditions, and funding new programs is not going to make it go away.
As to #2, even if you could be sure that defunding would work in the long run, is that a risk you are willing to take in the short term? It is perfectly rational to say no; we live in an infinite number of short terms. Don’t expect the public to accept that risk.