Defunding the Police Department in Philadelphia (violent crime, home, safe)

[gwillyfromphilly]

Mayor Kenney announced 13 Police reform measures with no increase to the Police Department. Others have called for stronger defunding of the Philadelphia Police Department. Do you support or are you against defunding the Police in Philly?

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ase-to-budget/

https://whyy.org/articles/more-than-...ce-department/

[thedirtypirate]

More details are out this morning. Crossing guards and the Public safety officers have been cut from the budget.

[FKD19124]

If the philadelphia Police are de-funded, then all the Kenney and Krasner lovers can police the city themselves.

[Fireshaker]

As with all things, it depends on how, exactly, these measures would be implemented here. I don't know if I trust this city government to do the right, smart thing.

But, in theory the defunding case is actually a very legitimate one. It's bad branding, but the underlying idea (like "dismantling") is not really getting rid of police, but rethinking exactly what police departments should be and what they should handle.

To wit:

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.

Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...025a87b8fac7f1

That is, instead of asking cops to do a lot of stuff they're not trained to do (such as mental health and homelessness) we put that work on people better equipped to handle it, and let the police focus more fully on things that are actually in their wheelhouse. The positive experiences of Camden (yes, Camden) shows that this is an idea with a ton of merit.

IF that is the approach we take here, I could get behind that. But the particulars remain to be seen.

[Redddog]

I wish there was another term being used for this movement. It's misleading and thus creating confusion where there shouldn't be. This in turn is slowing what should be a no brainer.

How I understand it is that funds should be redirected away from police to other agancies that are better suited to address issues police currently cover - like mental health, addiction and social services. Police Departments are not the most efficient or suitable agency to handle these jobs and taking those off the plate would mean that the police could streamline, refocus and, in the process, redefine how they police. Oversight like always-on cameras (off and you're suspended 1 week without pay), no immunity for crimes against citizens, choke-holds and excessive force banished, 3 strikes and you're out etc could then be trained and adopted as a start in the right direction.

I don't think anyone with a foot in reality is suggestion that we completely do away with the police. One incident where a criminal breaks into the home of such a person would immediately change their minds, I'm guessing.

We need cops. We just need better cops.

[Redddog]

damn you, fireshaker.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

More details are out this morning. Crossing guards and the Public safety officers have been cut from the budget.

100K city jobs have been lost so far.

So I'm really surprised there wasn't more budget slashing.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Fireshaker

As with all things, it depends on how, exactly, these measures would be implemented here. I don't know if I trust this city government to do the right, smart thing.

But, in theory the defunding case is actually a very legitimate one. It's bad branding, but the underlying idea (like "dismantling") is not really getting rid of police, but rethinking exactly what police departments should be and what they should handle.

To wit:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...025a87b8fac7f1

That is, instead of asking cops to do a lot of stuff they're not trained to do (such as mental health and homelessness) we put that work on people better equipped to handle it, and let the police focus more fully on things that are actually in their wheelhouse. The positive experiences of Camden (yes, Camden) shows that this is an idea with a ton of merit.

IF that is the approach we take here, I could get behind that. But the particulars remain to be seen.

I can tell you first hand that the PPD wastes a lot of energy and manhours doing mental health 911 calls. It's stuff they should not be doing at all.

[devdaen]

Legalize drugs and prostitution so the cops can focus more on violent crimes and property crimes.


Instead of bothering the police, there should be a 24 hour hotline for PPA to handle illegal parking across the city.

[devdaen]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

More details are out this morning. Crossing guards and the Public safety officers have been cut from the budget.

Does this mean there will no longer be crossing guards?