The concept of “defunding the police” refers to the idea of reallocating funds away from traditional policing and investing them in other programs and services, such as mental health services, education, and affordable housing, that can address the root causes of crime and social issues.
Critics of the idea argue that defunding the police is not pragmatic, as it could lead to an increase in crime and violence, and that there may not be enough resources available to address the safety concerns of communities without a strong police presence. They argue that police departments have a necessary role to play in maintaining public safety and that cutting funding for police departments could lead to a lack of resources and personnel to handle emergency situations and to keep communities safe.
Others argue that in order to make a meaningful change in the criminal justice system, funding needs to be shifted from traditional policing to other programs and services that can address the underlying issues that lead to crime and social issues. This can help to reduce the need for policing, improve public safety and ensure that all community members have access to the resources they need to thrive.
It’s important to note that defunding the police does not mean the complete elimination of policing, but rather a reallocation of resources to other programs and services that can address the root causes of crime and social issues. The specific approach and the extent of reallocation of resources may vary depending on the context and the specific needs of the community. The following CBC story is a good example of how defunding the police is not pragmatic.
