Quote:
Originally Posted by Crown Royal
If investing money in social programs works, there won't be the need to have the same police presence. It is also about demilitarizing the police.
|
I agree with you, in part.
Ideally, social programs reduce crime, which reduces the need for boots on the ground policing. In theory, this means you could reduce police funding as the benefits of the social programs take effect. But we're talking about a result that is years away, so to make the argument that social programs need better funding now by focusing on defunding police years from now is putting the cart before the horse.
Also, I would argue that patrol or general duty policing is just one aspect of what police do. If the need for that is reduced, there are lots of other policing needs that need funding. So one would still have too look at all areas of government spending and decide how to prioritize.
Edit: On the demilitarization side, this is where I think the Canadian and US experiences really diverge. The wide availability of high powered arms in the US means police must be more powerfully equipped if they're going to respond effectively to mass shootings, terrorist incidents, etc. That does not mean those bits of equipment should be deployed routinely, but they likely do need to be available to police in the US to a degree that is not necessary in Canada.
But I would agree that increasingly combative policing stance inevitably creates more of an us-and-them mentality, and a greater likelihood of violent encounters between police and citizens.