This elaborate argumentation is based the suppositions of children. Everyone's patience with the criminal, with "complex underlying causes" ends at their own front door, their own person, their own children. No matter, the siren call of socialism sings anew forever.
"Between all of this talk of “the tragic collapse of America’s public mental health system” and “the US’s largely gutted mental health system” and “the country pulled back and defunded its mental health system” and so on, you might get the impression that less money is being spent on mental health. This is not really true. The share of GDP devoted to mental health is the same as it was in 1971, although this looks worse if you compare it to rising costs in other areas of health care. There hasn’t been a “gutting of the mental health system”, there’s been a shift from long-term state-run mental hospitals to community care. It hasn’t “left the criminal justice system as the only system that can respond to people with mental illness”, it helped create an alternate and less restrictive system of outpatient psychiatry. In my opinion, this was a positive development, and the share of mentally ill people in prison is not an argument against it. Let me explain.
“Mentally ill people in prison” conjures up this lurid image of psychos who snap and kill their families, followed by “well, what did you expect leaving a person like that on the street?” The reality is more mundane. There are lots of mentally ill people in prison because there are lots of mentally ill people everywhere. Remember, 20% of the population qualifies as mentally ill in one sense or another. If a depressed guy sells some marijuana and gets caught, he is now a “mentally ill person in prison”.
There are disproportionately many mentally ill people in prison partly because people’s illnesses lead them to commit crimes, but mostly because some of the factors correlated with mental illness are the same factors correlated with criminality. Poverty? Check. Neighborhood effects? Check. Genetic load? Check. Education? Check. IQ? Check. Broken families? Check. Drug abuse? Definitely check. The factors that gave that pot dealer depression might be the same factors that drove him to sell pot instead of becoming an astronaut. Treating the depression might help a little, but it’s not guaranteed to keep him on the good side of the law.
In my model, the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people can live okay lives outside of any institution, hopefully receiving community care if they want it. If they commit crimes they will go to prison just like anyone else; if not, we should hardly be clamoring to bring back the often-horrifying state-run mental hospitals and lock them up there.
So when we talk about the number of mentally ill people in prison, we should be trying to distinguish between Lopez’s model and mine. That means asking: exactly how mentally ill are we talking about here?"
I think that the level that the idea of police is embedded in our national psyche and culture through things like John Wayne westerns is glaringly apparent in the inability to comprehend the slogan. Police do not stop crime. They investigate crime and do so very poorly leading to things like the pregnant lady who was murdered for allegedly shoplifting a minor amount. It's a fear distortion to assume defending means that police will no longer exist and the entire country will be lawless. And failure to understand the more complete message of a slogan is just willful ignorance. No slogan can fully encapsulate a nuanced policy goal. We have become so depend on sound bites that we fail to comprehend the context and make biased assumptions that confirm our bias. We fail to root out the blatant lies behind the sound bites. Not knowing what the slogan meant clearly exposes that you were not listening to any of the BIPOC who were actively discussing the issue. Defund the police is not abolition, which is a step beyond defending. It was very disappointing that the movement was rejected by liberals so thoroughly.
Thank you for this. Enough with, “When we say ‘defund the police’ what we mean is . . .” NO. What we mean is defund the police. Period. Politicians, companies, and people everywhere ‘took a chance’ to say Black Lives Matter. And all it took was a GLOBAL UPRISING. But what are they doing for Black LIVES? Throwing the phrase around after a Black death is doing nothing to prevent it happening again. When you fund the police you are giving them a larger paycheck to continue murdering Black and Brown people. When you fund the police your actions are are showing me Black Death matters and saying Black Lives Matter is all you are willing to do for Black people.
When you reduce numbers of police more black people die, because black people kill other black people at a vastly higher rate than the comparatively few who are shot by police. Police deter crime.
If you are trying to stop bad policing, of which there is too much, by all means do so. But reducing the numbers of all police is a huge mistake. Increasing their numbers would be best for all, because it would provide a deterrent to crime AND incentivize those who are now choosing crime to choose more productive activities.
Most of the organizers I listened to in Seattle were optimistic that the movement would do nothing but gain steam. For that reason (or some other reason I'm missing), the motivation to convert what we had going into actual policy change was not there. I considered the window for change definitively shut when I saw Ukraine flags replacing BLM signs as the middle class liberal's flavor of the month.
Hi Hamilton, very interesting article, as usual. Very deep and conscious. But we all know that capitalism only works with repression. How will the defund the police? Or de Army? They need to do exacly the opposite. That's why Biden said " fund the police". They have to do it. More money to keep us under control. Take care.
The problem with this article is that it assumes the democrats aren't fully on-board with everything cops do.
The system is working as intended. All the brutality and cruelty is by design. They're funding the police to do this. Asking them to defund the cops for being evil is like asking somebody to stop drinking water because they're thirsty
Yep, I like the article and am an abolitionist myself, but that the Dems did exactly what Dems do is zero percent surprising. Both parties favor a police state to keep the wage slaves in their place, but only one party is truly honest about it.
Well, now you pretty much have to tell us about throwing a left hook. Please keep in mind that if any of us ever have a reason to do so, we probably won't be wearing gloves.
One of the many ironies that amuse and disgust me is that several GOP mouths want to get rid of the FBI. (And Ramaswamy says that he wants to get rid of ATF, too. And 75% of everything.) Why is no one calling them Commies and Anarchists?
And congratulations on the inclusion in the 2023 Best of, especially with that added bit of justice.
Because local level policing actually deals with crimes like murder, break ins, and domestic abuse, whereas the 3 letter agencies are tools to stop political dissent on both the left and right, and the CIA literally overthrows elected foreign governments. Now you know!
I used to live in a mid-sized city where my car and house were broken into a few times. The police there did the bare minimum. Nothing was ever found or returned. Handed me reports for insurance, if they bothered to come out at all. I didn't bother calling them the last time it happened - I just sold the house for a loss and moved away.
They were very good at writing traffic tickets, though.
I don't think that the solve rate for homicides is anything for locals to crow about.
And the irony in the GOP calling for the elimination of these agencies is that, up until Trump ended up on the wrong side of the line, the GOP were staunch supporters. Antiterrorism and all of that.
I am very aware of the reprehensible acts these agencies have committed. I'm not defending them in my initial reply, just pointing out the inconsistency/hypocrisy of a number of GOP mouthpieces, especially when they were apoplectic about "defund the police".
"Local level police" don't "deal with" anything lol. They show up after a crime has happened, shoot the dog, and write some lies on a piece of paper. The only thing they're actually good for is providing cheap labor to private prisons so their billionaire owners can get a third yacht
In the context of the 15-30 second political sound bite ad, it is barely possible to imagine a framing of a worthwhile goal that would be worse than "Defund the Police". That's why Dems ran away from it.
Only a very small minority believe in eliminating the police altogether. And, if you have to explain that that isn't what it means, you're losing. I understand that your complaint is that this isn't true, but the people who had to stand for election obviously disagree.
"Only a very small minority believe in eliminating the police altogether."
Even more to the point, the number of people who feel police should be hailed as heroes even when they "make a mistake" and kill someone innocent outnumber this small minority by several orders of magnitude. And scrambling their brains with wonky, inside-baseball explanations are not going to be much help in changing these people's minds. Believe me, I tried for years before realizing the futility of my efforts.
I swear some of y'all really really need a field trip to Waukesha, or Orange County, or Colorado Springs to talk to people who do not and will never populate your activist circles. You bring up "defund" to even most Democrats in those culturally conservative areas and you're immediately sorted into the Pile of Unserious People. You might as well try arguing "change the flag to a psychedelic flower print."
Now, the optimistic news is that there is hope on the horizon. Young people in these areas are generally not so married to the mythology of American Exceptionalism that tends to preclude cop worship, at least in comparison to their parents. It's a fools' errand to try and predict these kinds of shifts with precision, but I'd wager confidently that it'll be a more realistic and nuanced debate within my expected lifetime (I'm 34). Before I die, maybe, hopefully, much much before I die.
But right now, at this moment in time? I can understand why the people standing for election feel they have to do what they have to do. And that's before you get into what happens to elected officials who are vocally anti-cop in this day and age. I'm not saying the CPD wildcat strike is valid, I'm saying it's the reality that someone running for office has to reckon with when they choose their messaging on law enforcement, and it's hard for me to blame anybody who doesn't want that smoke. Brandon Johnson is a hero, but we can't expect him to be our baseline if we hope to win anything in this country.
This right here. They gave it a name that any idiot would realize was going to alienate the mainstream general public. A name that sabotages the actual policy goals that are reasonable and attainable. What is does accomplish is that is SOUNDS controversial and edgy and makes you feel cool for saying while all but guaranteeing no actual progress will get made. It’s typical campus-activist dipshit mentality.
Nahhhh, you're the one being performative. You agree with the slogan's goals, but your disagree with its articulation because you're sO MucH sMaRtEr than those idiot activists. Critiquing the rhetoric gives you power.
"Defund the police" was preceded by "Abolish ICE." On their own, they imply the non-enforcement of laws. That is lizard-brain terrifying to the vast, vast majority of people. Embracing either of those is political suicide.
This is a very good piece but also what do we do when none of the politicians do this? For example, Atlanta is currently in the process of bulldozing a forest to build a School Of The Americas Jr on top of it, and arresting or outright shooting anyone who resists, with the backing of politicians at all levels. Even Julian Bond's own son is supporting that effort. All of the nonviolent methods of resistance are being shut off, and the cops have a near-monopoly on the violent ones.
What do we do, write another letter that will be ignored or answered with a boilerplate response? Protest and risk having to spend a lot of money and possibly jail time just to get a judge to dismiss the charges while the arrest itself and the mugshots live on the internet forever, assuming the cops don't just gun you down and get a month of paid vacation for it while the DA comes up with a reason to decide you deserved to die? Donate to a local politician who will either be absorbed into the machine when they realize it's easier and more lucrative to be a team player, or be crushed by the state party if they refuse to play ball and replaced with someone who will?
Am I being a Doomer, or a Realist? Neither answer is very encouraging.
In the case of cop city in Atlanta a ton of great people have organized successfully to put it on the ballot so there is your answer. Organizing is not a waste of time.
If there was only one thing that could be done to reform our criminal "justice" system, it would be to radically fund the court system and require a jury verdict for all felony convictions.
This is what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. The jury is one of the most democratic elements of our society. It would bring the public in to see what our sytem looks like. It would curb police malfeasance because juries would throw cases out where it occurred. It would end the charge-and-plea meat grinder system the poor suffer under. It would reduce prison populations. Etc.
I agree with your goals wholeheartedly, but this is a fight we've been having for a long time (and I'm old), and I'm not optimistic about the possibility of taking power from the ownership class (especially seeing how the 2020 protests achieved nothing).
Have you ever been a plaintiff or defendent in a jury trial? I have been a plaintiff, though it was civil court, not criminal. I lost all faith in the fairness of juries, judges, attorneys, and the judicial system in that trial. There's no such thing as justice when voir dire is as rigged as it is to ensure the "peers" that end up deciding the outcome are the ones with the lowest intelligence.
I practiced law for a number of years, doing litigation. The court dockets were so clogged, we settled most cases, but I've done a bunch of jury trials.
I'm sorry to hear yours went bad. It's a general rule that any particular jury is liable to do anything. But juries over time will revert to a mean that I think would be helpful. (I've never believed that jury selection was nearly as important as framing the case to the whole panel during voir dire. I was mostly defense, and I tended to want people like teachers who would pay attention, but otherwise didn't try and predict anything.)
You illustrate the problem with the slogan when you note, "...We all know that what it actually means is “don’t spend money on cops to solve social problems that they can’t solve—spend that money in ways that can actually address these complex problems." I actually had no idea that is what the slogan meant FOR MONTHS.....
I think there actually is a problem with the slogan you're not addressing. To say police can't solve X problem is to let them off the hook. The question is whether police are doing a good job at what they are supposed to be actually doing, and by the same token, how overfunded police are, especially in Democratic -run cities. The issue in NYC is not a matter of "reallocating funding"- the services the public receives for incredibly high taxes are pathetic, even leaving the overstaffed police out of it. The issue is about Democrats babbling about "equity" and "community policing" and then throwing the police billions more dollars to break the law themselves while those well-funded police refuse to show up at city council hearings and when they do, just lie anyway. Ideally the executive should effectively control the police but when he does not, defunding is the normal mechanism for the legislature to exert its control.
This is totally different from the vague idea that unemployed NYU grads should be sent into the hood en masse to be "social workers" which many people were saying some variation of in 2020
Double down on a failed strategy, blame the failure on others, and take no credit for the failure.
Had to read 3 pages to be sure of what you meant. I read this post because of someone I generally trust, but in this case they were wrong.
The slogan could work if it was used by a disciplined movement, but BLM and everything around it is intentionally very decentralized.
I encountered plenty of individuals who explained and interpreted the slogan in exactly the way that's not consistent with "we all know".
Just admit the mistake and reboot with a different but consistent framing. Calls to double down will only delay that necessary action and lead to more failure.
The problems here are that the Democratic Party has not been a true, vigorous *opposition* part since the 80s, specially after the Clinton-led DLC got control. From that point on, the party has been, to coin a phrase, an echo not a real choice for what needs to be done of which defunding Porky should be a major goal. BTW: Democrat politicians submitting to Republicans extends waaaay beyond just defund the police -- as per the DLC position that the party should just be GOP-lite because that’s how to get Republican special interests’ money.
The second factor is the establishment media’s grossly underreporting and misreporting the issue (like everything else of importance).
That ranted, voting the GOP out of power ASAP is essential. After that, the party can be purged IYKWIMAITYD.
Hear, hear. Abolitionists have it right: Address the root causes of crime by properly funding education, housing, healthcare, and the like.
It's a matter of being proactive vs. reactive.
Spot
On.
This elaborate argumentation is based the suppositions of children. Everyone's patience with the criminal, with "complex underlying causes" ends at their own front door, their own person, their own children. No matter, the siren call of socialism sings anew forever.
Does genetically based metal illness exist, yes or no?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/07/reverse-voxsplaining-prison-and-mental-illness/
"Between all of this talk of “the tragic collapse of America’s public mental health system” and “the US’s largely gutted mental health system” and “the country pulled back and defunded its mental health system” and so on, you might get the impression that less money is being spent on mental health. This is not really true. The share of GDP devoted to mental health is the same as it was in 1971, although this looks worse if you compare it to rising costs in other areas of health care. There hasn’t been a “gutting of the mental health system”, there’s been a shift from long-term state-run mental hospitals to community care. It hasn’t “left the criminal justice system as the only system that can respond to people with mental illness”, it helped create an alternate and less restrictive system of outpatient psychiatry. In my opinion, this was a positive development, and the share of mentally ill people in prison is not an argument against it. Let me explain.
“Mentally ill people in prison” conjures up this lurid image of psychos who snap and kill their families, followed by “well, what did you expect leaving a person like that on the street?” The reality is more mundane. There are lots of mentally ill people in prison because there are lots of mentally ill people everywhere. Remember, 20% of the population qualifies as mentally ill in one sense or another. If a depressed guy sells some marijuana and gets caught, he is now a “mentally ill person in prison”.
There are disproportionately many mentally ill people in prison partly because people’s illnesses lead them to commit crimes, but mostly because some of the factors correlated with mental illness are the same factors correlated with criminality. Poverty? Check. Neighborhood effects? Check. Genetic load? Check. Education? Check. IQ? Check. Broken families? Check. Drug abuse? Definitely check. The factors that gave that pot dealer depression might be the same factors that drove him to sell pot instead of becoming an astronaut. Treating the depression might help a little, but it’s not guaranteed to keep him on the good side of the law.
In my model, the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people can live okay lives outside of any institution, hopefully receiving community care if they want it. If they commit crimes they will go to prison just like anyone else; if not, we should hardly be clamoring to bring back the often-horrifying state-run mental hospitals and lock them up there.
So when we talk about the number of mentally ill people in prison, we should be trying to distinguish between Lopez’s model and mine. That means asking: exactly how mentally ill are we talking about here?"
I think that the level that the idea of police is embedded in our national psyche and culture through things like John Wayne westerns is glaringly apparent in the inability to comprehend the slogan. Police do not stop crime. They investigate crime and do so very poorly leading to things like the pregnant lady who was murdered for allegedly shoplifting a minor amount. It's a fear distortion to assume defending means that police will no longer exist and the entire country will be lawless. And failure to understand the more complete message of a slogan is just willful ignorance. No slogan can fully encapsulate a nuanced policy goal. We have become so depend on sound bites that we fail to comprehend the context and make biased assumptions that confirm our bias. We fail to root out the blatant lies behind the sound bites. Not knowing what the slogan meant clearly exposes that you were not listening to any of the BIPOC who were actively discussing the issue. Defund the police is not abolition, which is a step beyond defending. It was very disappointing that the movement was rejected by liberals so thoroughly.
Thank you for this. Enough with, “When we say ‘defund the police’ what we mean is . . .” NO. What we mean is defund the police. Period. Politicians, companies, and people everywhere ‘took a chance’ to say Black Lives Matter. And all it took was a GLOBAL UPRISING. But what are they doing for Black LIVES? Throwing the phrase around after a Black death is doing nothing to prevent it happening again. When you fund the police you are giving them a larger paycheck to continue murdering Black and Brown people. When you fund the police your actions are are showing me Black Death matters and saying Black Lives Matter is all you are willing to do for Black people.
When you reduce numbers of police more black people die, because black people kill other black people at a vastly higher rate than the comparatively few who are shot by police. Police deter crime.
If you are trying to stop bad policing, of which there is too much, by all means do so. But reducing the numbers of all police is a huge mistake. Increasing their numbers would be best for all, because it would provide a deterrent to crime AND incentivize those who are now choosing crime to choose more productive activities.
Amazing everything you said was both wrong and super racist
Go fuck yourself
Most of the organizers I listened to in Seattle were optimistic that the movement would do nothing but gain steam. For that reason (or some other reason I'm missing), the motivation to convert what we had going into actual policy change was not there. I considered the window for change definitively shut when I saw Ukraine flags replacing BLM signs as the middle class liberal's flavor of the month.
Seattle. Leaders detached from public safety reality because they don't live in the neighborhoods their choices destroy.
Hi Hamilton, very interesting article, as usual. Very deep and conscious. But we all know that capitalism only works with repression. How will the defund the police? Or de Army? They need to do exacly the opposite. That's why Biden said " fund the police". They have to do it. More money to keep us under control. Take care.
Congrats on the honor, proud to be an early Defector subscriber ✊
The problem with this article is that it assumes the democrats aren't fully on-board with everything cops do.
The system is working as intended. All the brutality and cruelty is by design. They're funding the police to do this. Asking them to defund the cops for being evil is like asking somebody to stop drinking water because they're thirsty
Yep, I like the article and am an abolitionist myself, but that the Dems did exactly what Dems do is zero percent surprising. Both parties favor a police state to keep the wage slaves in their place, but only one party is truly honest about it.
This is without a doubt the smartest essay I've ever read on the subject.
I'm writing in my Monday substack that my Mayor (San Diego) should read it. And then he should go look in the mirror.
Well, now you pretty much have to tell us about throwing a left hook. Please keep in mind that if any of us ever have a reason to do so, we probably won't be wearing gloves.
One of the many ironies that amuse and disgust me is that several GOP mouths want to get rid of the FBI. (And Ramaswamy says that he wants to get rid of ATF, too. And 75% of everything.) Why is no one calling them Commies and Anarchists?
And congratulations on the inclusion in the 2023 Best of, especially with that added bit of justice.
Because local level policing actually deals with crimes like murder, break ins, and domestic abuse, whereas the 3 letter agencies are tools to stop political dissent on both the left and right, and the CIA literally overthrows elected foreign governments. Now you know!
I used to live in a mid-sized city where my car and house were broken into a few times. The police there did the bare minimum. Nothing was ever found or returned. Handed me reports for insurance, if they bothered to come out at all. I didn't bother calling them the last time it happened - I just sold the house for a loss and moved away.
They were very good at writing traffic tickets, though.
I don't think that the solve rate for homicides is anything for locals to crow about.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/26/us-murders-unsolved-homicide-police-san-francisco-brandon-cheese
And the irony in the GOP calling for the elimination of these agencies is that, up until Trump ended up on the wrong side of the line, the GOP were staunch supporters. Antiterrorism and all of that.
I am very aware of the reprehensible acts these agencies have committed. I'm not defending them in my initial reply, just pointing out the inconsistency/hypocrisy of a number of GOP mouthpieces, especially when they were apoplectic about "defund the police".
"Local level police" don't "deal with" anything lol. They show up after a crime has happened, shoot the dog, and write some lies on a piece of paper. The only thing they're actually good for is providing cheap labor to private prisons so their billionaire owners can get a third yacht
In the context of the 15-30 second political sound bite ad, it is barely possible to imagine a framing of a worthwhile goal that would be worse than "Defund the Police". That's why Dems ran away from it.
Only a very small minority believe in eliminating the police altogether. And, if you have to explain that that isn't what it means, you're losing. I understand that your complaint is that this isn't true, but the people who had to stand for election obviously disagree.
"Only a very small minority believe in eliminating the police altogether."
Even more to the point, the number of people who feel police should be hailed as heroes even when they "make a mistake" and kill someone innocent outnumber this small minority by several orders of magnitude. And scrambling their brains with wonky, inside-baseball explanations are not going to be much help in changing these people's minds. Believe me, I tried for years before realizing the futility of my efforts.
I swear some of y'all really really need a field trip to Waukesha, or Orange County, or Colorado Springs to talk to people who do not and will never populate your activist circles. You bring up "defund" to even most Democrats in those culturally conservative areas and you're immediately sorted into the Pile of Unserious People. You might as well try arguing "change the flag to a psychedelic flower print."
Now, the optimistic news is that there is hope on the horizon. Young people in these areas are generally not so married to the mythology of American Exceptionalism that tends to preclude cop worship, at least in comparison to their parents. It's a fools' errand to try and predict these kinds of shifts with precision, but I'd wager confidently that it'll be a more realistic and nuanced debate within my expected lifetime (I'm 34). Before I die, maybe, hopefully, much much before I die.
But right now, at this moment in time? I can understand why the people standing for election feel they have to do what they have to do. And that's before you get into what happens to elected officials who are vocally anti-cop in this day and age. I'm not saying the CPD wildcat strike is valid, I'm saying it's the reality that someone running for office has to reckon with when they choose their messaging on law enforcement, and it's hard for me to blame anybody who doesn't want that smoke. Brandon Johnson is a hero, but we can't expect him to be our baseline if we hope to win anything in this country.
This right here. They gave it a name that any idiot would realize was going to alienate the mainstream general public. A name that sabotages the actual policy goals that are reasonable and attainable. What is does accomplish is that is SOUNDS controversial and edgy and makes you feel cool for saying while all but guaranteeing no actual progress will get made. It’s typical campus-activist dipshit mentality.
Nahhhh, you're the one being performative. You agree with the slogan's goals, but your disagree with its articulation because you're sO MucH sMaRtEr than those idiot activists. Critiquing the rhetoric gives you power.
"Defund the police" was preceded by "Abolish ICE." On their own, they imply the non-enforcement of laws. That is lizard-brain terrifying to the vast, vast majority of people. Embracing either of those is political suicide.
This is a very good piece but also what do we do when none of the politicians do this? For example, Atlanta is currently in the process of bulldozing a forest to build a School Of The Americas Jr on top of it, and arresting or outright shooting anyone who resists, with the backing of politicians at all levels. Even Julian Bond's own son is supporting that effort. All of the nonviolent methods of resistance are being shut off, and the cops have a near-monopoly on the violent ones.
What do we do, write another letter that will be ignored or answered with a boilerplate response? Protest and risk having to spend a lot of money and possibly jail time just to get a judge to dismiss the charges while the arrest itself and the mugshots live on the internet forever, assuming the cops don't just gun you down and get a month of paid vacation for it while the DA comes up with a reason to decide you deserved to die? Donate to a local politician who will either be absorbed into the machine when they realize it's easier and more lucrative to be a team player, or be crushed by the state party if they refuse to play ball and replaced with someone who will?
Am I being a Doomer, or a Realist? Neither answer is very encouraging.
In the case of cop city in Atlanta a ton of great people have organized successfully to put it on the ballot so there is your answer. Organizing is not a waste of time.
If there was only one thing that could be done to reform our criminal "justice" system, it would be to radically fund the court system and require a jury verdict for all felony convictions.
This is what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. The jury is one of the most democratic elements of our society. It would bring the public in to see what our sytem looks like. It would curb police malfeasance because juries would throw cases out where it occurred. It would end the charge-and-plea meat grinder system the poor suffer under. It would reduce prison populations. Etc.
I agree with your goals wholeheartedly, but this is a fight we've been having for a long time (and I'm old), and I'm not optimistic about the possibility of taking power from the ownership class (especially seeing how the 2020 protests achieved nothing).
Have you ever been a plaintiff or defendent in a jury trial? I have been a plaintiff, though it was civil court, not criminal. I lost all faith in the fairness of juries, judges, attorneys, and the judicial system in that trial. There's no such thing as justice when voir dire is as rigged as it is to ensure the "peers" that end up deciding the outcome are the ones with the lowest intelligence.
I practiced law for a number of years, doing litigation. The court dockets were so clogged, we settled most cases, but I've done a bunch of jury trials.
I'm sorry to hear yours went bad. It's a general rule that any particular jury is liable to do anything. But juries over time will revert to a mean that I think would be helpful. (I've never believed that jury selection was nearly as important as framing the case to the whole panel during voir dire. I was mostly defense, and I tended to want people like teachers who would pay attention, but otherwise didn't try and predict anything.)
You illustrate the problem with the slogan when you note, "...We all know that what it actually means is “don’t spend money on cops to solve social problems that they can’t solve—spend that money in ways that can actually address these complex problems." I actually had no idea that is what the slogan meant FOR MONTHS.....
So, I need the internet to understand what a slogan means?
I use the internet to learn lots of things
I think there actually is a problem with the slogan you're not addressing. To say police can't solve X problem is to let them off the hook. The question is whether police are doing a good job at what they are supposed to be actually doing, and by the same token, how overfunded police are, especially in Democratic -run cities. The issue in NYC is not a matter of "reallocating funding"- the services the public receives for incredibly high taxes are pathetic, even leaving the overstaffed police out of it. The issue is about Democrats babbling about "equity" and "community policing" and then throwing the police billions more dollars to break the law themselves while those well-funded police refuse to show up at city council hearings and when they do, just lie anyway. Ideally the executive should effectively control the police but when he does not, defunding is the normal mechanism for the legislature to exert its control.
This is totally different from the vague idea that unemployed NYU grads should be sent into the hood en masse to be "social workers" which many people were saying some variation of in 2020
This! Thank you.
A google search for "defund the police social workers" from Jan 1 2020 to December 31 2020 turns up a lot. For instance https://theappeal.org/social-workers-are-rejecting-calls-for-them-to-replace-police/
Double down on a failed strategy, blame the failure on others, and take no credit for the failure.
Had to read 3 pages to be sure of what you meant. I read this post because of someone I generally trust, but in this case they were wrong.
The slogan could work if it was used by a disciplined movement, but BLM and everything around it is intentionally very decentralized.
I encountered plenty of individuals who explained and interpreted the slogan in exactly the way that's not consistent with "we all know".
Just admit the mistake and reboot with a different but consistent framing. Calls to double down will only delay that necessary action and lead to more failure.
The problems here are that the Democratic Party has not been a true, vigorous *opposition* part since the 80s, specially after the Clinton-led DLC got control. From that point on, the party has been, to coin a phrase, an echo not a real choice for what needs to be done of which defunding Porky should be a major goal. BTW: Democrat politicians submitting to Republicans extends waaaay beyond just defund the police -- as per the DLC position that the party should just be GOP-lite because that’s how to get Republican special interests’ money.
The second factor is the establishment media’s grossly underreporting and misreporting the issue (like everything else of importance).
That ranted, voting the GOP out of power ASAP is essential. After that, the party can be purged IYKWIMAITYD.