Forty-Six: Police Abolition (04-03-2023)
The following is text from a university one hundred level course reading response. I've left in the questions to demonstrate their leading nature in forcing underclassmen into viewing a politically biased and arguably extreme text as an undeniably agreeable doctrine. I'm soon to graduate, and therefore much more willing and able to contribute a combative response. The text at hand is We Do This Til We Free Us by Mariame Kaba, which I did not read all of and will not read all of, as within the assigned segments I found enough that I disagree with to understand the fruitlessness of finishing the entire book. I also am familiar enough with the issues presented to have my own opinions and old enough to not need convincing in another direction.
1. What did you think abolition meant before reading some of this book? Has your definition changed? How so?
a. I’m going to answer the first question before reading- in my head I view abolition (in this case prison abolition) as the systematic deconstruction of the current penal system (in this frame of reference) in the United States. The point afterwards is not immediately clear to me, but the need for total reform is. The rest of this answer is written after reading the assigned section of the book. The idea of abolition as an ideological framework is clear to me, but ineffective because it is not immediately clear to a layman, and very few common people are going to be reading even plainly written theory like this to understand political concepts. Politics and change are a game of slogans and headlines, and abolition falls short of being effective in that manner. This is a trite observation, but nevertheless seems to be true. Also- most readers who are not immediately onboard with the abolition cause will abandon this text at page 40 if not earlier, at the line “… if we keep building the world we want, trying new things, and learning from our mistakes, new possibilities emerge, ”because- when discussing crime and policing- mistakes mean actual human beings dead or injured, a cost that cannot be afforded in the pursuit of change. I struggle to gain understanding of the abolitionist message because it inherently ignores the existence of actually violent, antisocial people, who, with the perception of a low risk of being caught and held accountable for their crimes, are capable of causing a lot of physical and psychological damage to society. While stories of police abuse are tragic and need addressing, cutting a police budget in half as this text suggests will only encourage this group of people, who do really exist- as evidenced by recidivism and cultural glorification of them, to commit more crime. Later, the case of Martin Shkreli is presented as an example of the incongruity of justice, comparing the harm of his (unpunished) price hikes to the common crime often imagined in these scenarios. The author avoids blatant bloodthirst, but it is silly to allege that there is a comparison to be made between a pharmaceutical executive and a petty thief or gangbanger with regards to their ability to be recast in society. It is also silly to bemoan white people for being incapable of imagining an alternative to the current state of policing without presenting one yourself. It’s schoolyard taunting- “you don’t have as big of an imagination as I do”.
2. What is your personal definition of safety? How might your definition of safety differ from other peoples’ definitions of safety? Why do many people equate safety with policing? What are some of the messages- in the media, popular culture, and in community- that contribute to the idea that prisons, police, and surveillance contribute to safety?
a. My personal definition of safety would be the feeling of being at a low risk of facing bodily harm or personal loss. This feeling is relative, and certainly for me very apparently different from others. Even within my nuclear family there are varying versions of safety- my parents are very opposed to having their children live in Philadelphia, and not very receptive to arguments against the popular assumption of Philadelphia’s lawlessness- not to discount an obvious crime problem. Safety is equated with policing because policing is, at this point, the only visible opposition to “danger”- crime. Preventative actions, like community organizing, school funding, drug treatment, and jobs programs that are proactive in preventing crime are invisible to the general public and therefore difficult to associate with creating safety. The 24 hour news cycle is highly effective at echoing police union messaging of the singular force that police should be against crime. “Copaganda” as simple as splash stories about cops helping lost children and as malicious as deifying police responding to mass shooting incidents can create the illusion of an unparalleled force for good.
3. Have you ever believed that prisons, police, and surveillance are inevitable solutions to crime? Why or why not? Why does Kaba emphasize that hope is a discipline rather than an emotion? How can you practice hope? How can you practice imagining new solutions and possibilities for responding to harm?
a. Prisons, police, and surveillance are not inevitable solutions to crime, but under our current societal organization, they are solutions to crime, and can be effective solutions to crime. A person commits a murder, the murder is investigated by police detectives, they utilize surveillance in its myriad forms, they apprehend, charge, and place the murderer in prison. This crime has been solved. This framework does work, although it leaves significant areas untouched. The larger effect crimes have on communities is not addressed, the potentiality for reformation is left open, and the victims are not necessarily directly considered, although they should not have a final say on the methods of justice. Practicing imagining new solutions is a seemingly pointless task- there are organizations and systems that already exist that work to prevent crime and its causes. Community organizations as well as governmental programs that seek to address the underlying causes of crime, usually, and these groups are usually underfunded even when not placed in relation to police forces.
4. Have you ever desired or called for punishment for someone who committed harm? How do we challenge and reconsider our own punitive impulses? How can we encourage others to do the same? How could the reparations framework- which includes repair, restoration, acknowledgment, cessation, and non-repetition- benefit victims and their families?
a. I feel particularly suited to answer this question as the victim of a violent crime where the perpetrators were not, and will never be, brought to justice by the nature of the crime and current policing in Philadelphia. The immediate and lasting impulse as the victim of violent crime is to wish punishment on the perpetrator, but eventually some level of forgiveness and wishing for justice in a less violent form does settle in- it is difficult to maintain this forgiveness considering the lack of consequences for the perpetrators and the impossibility in determining the motives for their actions. I honestly found personally, that adopting some form of forgiveness from Christian discipline worked well- the ability for devout Christians to impulsively desire forgiveness and non-violent, compassionate justice for the perpetrators of violent crimes, even those they are victims of, is impressive and, despite popular perception, not rooted in a fear of retribution from their own God. This last question is challenging for me to answer- it is very difficult, nay impossible, for me to envision a way in which a reparation framework could benefit victims of random crimes, especially when the following circumstances are true, as they often are:
i. The perpetrators are not caught.
ii. The victim is in a higher socioeconomic class than the perpetrators.
iii. Actions taken by the victim in some way heightened their risk of being the victim of a violent crime.
b. The human instinct for quasi-revenge punishment for their assailant is the basis of the idea of justice. The need for some equal response to be enacted on someone accused of wrongdoing is simple the maintenance of a moral code at the societal level not necessarily shared universally amongst the members of that society. If there is no motivation to punish, then order is maintained by force by those most willing to be violent and aggressive in its maintenance. Paradoxically, this is the accusation often leveled against US police departments- that their aggressive tactics are contrary to the idea of justice and peaceful order. The self-fulfilling prophecy of violent crime and violent law enforcement, while not universally true, is a difficult cycle to break.
5. What questions or concerns do you still have about abolition?
a. My question about abolition is the same that I have for any revolutionary or aspirational framework- why? The concrete, present, and short-term needs of the communities that would most benefit from abolition are not addressable by abolition. It’s interesting to read essays from 2020, when the mindset and atmosphere around policing was much different than it is today. I limit my thinking about these problems to Philadelphia, which does have an abusive, overfunded, undereffective police force, but has serious crime problems that stem from both poverty and failures in policing. Abolishing the police is an unpopular stance in Philadelphia because it would not solve this city’s problems, and likely would ascorbate them. As I stated earlier- abolition is not a good slogan, and even its neutered child “defund” does not work either. People understand that police need reform, and are open to reforms that divert funding from police towards other programs. People understand that police unions are bad and create disbalanced power systems between governments and their unruly police forces. People do not, however, want to eliminate police in such a bombastic and rapid manner as “abolish” and “defund” imply. There is not going to be a violent or rapid revolution in the United States, and as such the adoption of theoretical frameworks that are ineffective at playing politics- even in their infant stages if the end goal is to redevelop the political structure entirely- will not garner enough support to survive. Cries to defund the police fall on deaf ears in Philadelphia today, three years after the nationwide protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd. Crime, particularly violent crime, has surged in Philadelphia, and the lessening of police power is not the proper response.
6. Pull a quote or two from the assigned Part One of the book and analyze. How does that section of the text, as part of the larger text, encourage you to consider abolition as a valuable movement?
a. I’m going to pull a quote that I don’t think makes any particular rhetorical argument for the consideration of abolition- but rather provides a concrete series of demands or actions that would lead to, but do not describe, a certain post-policing future. In the pursuit of convincing an audience to support an idea, it is at some point necessary to describe the particulars or either that idea or the path towards its implementation. As follows:
On the way to abolition, we can take a number of
intermediate steps to shrink the police force and to
restructure our relationships with each other. These
include:
1) Organizing for dramatic decreases of police budgets
and redirecting those funds to other social goods
(defunding the police).
2) Ending cash bail.
3) Overturning police bills of rights.
4) Abolishing police unions.
5) Crowding out the police in our communities.
6) Disarming the police.
7) Creating abolitionist messages that penetrate the
public consciousness to disrupt the idea that cops =
safety.
8) Building community-based interventions that address
harms without relying on police.
9) Evaluating any reforms based on these criteria.
10) Thinking through the end of the police and imagining
alternatives.
b. I’ll go down the list and describe my support or critique for each of these points, nicely listed, as a way of demonstrating their individual efficacy. One- no issue here, although this is a matter of opinion, see previous comments about defunding slogans. Two- good, a demand that is easy to support and widely acceptable. Three- I lack familiarity, I’ll avoid responding as such. Four- supportable, but difficult in practice, and would be somewhat difficult to convince the issue uneducated to support. Five- this language is confusing and suggests violence. Six- in present times and in the specific lens of the city of Philadelphia, this is a horrible idea. Gun violence cannot be addressed without an armed opposition to meet those with guns, and this extends beyond news-cycle-golden-children mass shootings to all shootings. Seven- this is a clear and actionable direction, and police already do not universally represent safety nor are they the only force that can generate feelings of safety. Eight- this is already occurring and universally supported.
7. Read one more essay or interview from the book and write a brief summary and strong analysis of the essay or interview. Write it as if you are engaging in conversation with the writer and our class. What can you add? How can you relate to it? What questions do you have?
a. Selected the first essay from Section III Whether Darren Wilson is Indicted or Not , the Entire System Is Guilty
i. This essay covers some background of the situation in Ferguson, MI following the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson, in the time between the formation of a grand jury and the eventual decision not to charge Wilson with a crime in the death of Brown. In spite of the decision, unknown at the time of writing, the author advocates for the demilitarization of police and the consideration of alternatives in the response and search for justice. The same lack of clear alternatives that is present in more contemporary writing is present, and somewhat excusable considering the Black Lives Matter movement and the spread of police reform sentiments was in its infancy in 2014. It is telling, however, that in the near decade since the Michael Brown shooting, little reform has been imposed even considering the more incremental proposals that have been presented since. People truly do not care anymore about Michael Brown, and in due time will care less and less about even more contemporary shootings. This essay serves as a useful time capsule of the moment, and interesting evidence of the inevitable lack of change that is apparent even early in these movements. It does make the question of necessity for more revolutionary efforts more considerable.