Should police funding be increased or decreased?

Curtice (Increased)

Communities need a police presence to act as a crime deterrence. Reducing police budgets has multiple negative consequences, as smaller police budgets inevitably lead to fewer police officers. It also produces low morale and disincentivizes people from joining the force. It further encourages many in law enforcement currently to consider leaving the field altogether. Conversely, adequate and proper funding improves morale, encourages individuals to consider a career in law enforcement, and provides a safer city.

Criminals commit crimes because they think they can get away with it. They are more likely to commit crimes in places where the chances of getting arrested are small. Recent history proves this is true. Many cities around the country jumped on the defund police bandwagon. In these cities where police budgets were reduced, crime, including violent crime, increased dramatically. San Francisco is perhaps the best example but is, by no means, the only one. 

In 2020, the city chose to reduce the law enforcement budget by $120 million. The immediate results were stunning: Homicides increased by 20% in 2020 compared to 2019 and by 17% in 2021 compared to 2020. According to data compiled by SFGate, burglaries rose 47% in 2020 compared to the prior three years. That was enough that even San Francisco political leaders realized the folly of their ways and reversed course.

Yet, San Francisco is not alone. Los Angeles cut $150 million from its police budget in 2020, only to see shootings rise 32%. New York City cut $1 billion from its police funds in 2020, and the city witnessed a 130% increase in shootings in one month. There were many other cities that defunded police and experienced similar increases in crime. It is terrible policy that never should have been implemented, let alone considered.

James (Decreased)

As communities across the nation grapple with public safety and justice issues, the idea of decreasing funding for the police has gained traction. One of the primary advantages of lowering police funding is the opportunity for resource redistribution. By diverting funds to social services and community-based programs, we can address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, mental health issues, and lack of educational opportunities. This proactive approach not only reduces crime rates but also promotes the overall welfare of the community. Reduced police funding empowers communities by fostering engagement and collaboration. When individuals and groups actively participate in shaping local safety measures, they have a vested interest in creating stronger neighborhoods. Community-led initiatives and programs can enhance trust, communication, and cooperation between residents and law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, decreased funding prompts a reevaluation of policing practices, leading to increased transparency, oversight, and accountability within law enforcement agencies. This scrutiny encourages police departments to implement reforms, improve training, and build stronger relationships with the communities they serve. Investing in alternative conflict resolution methods and de-escalation training reduces reliance on force and encourages nonviolent approaches. Interactions between law enforcement and the community become safer and less prone to unnecessary violence by emphasizing dialogue, mediation, and understanding. Finally, decreasing funding for the police allows for the implementation of measures aimed at addressing systemic racism and reducing the disproportionate impact of policing on marginalized communities. We can develop initiatives that promote fairness, equality, and justice for all by reallocating resources. Thus creating a society where every individual feels safe and respected.