I Never Saw Safety as an Either-Or Choice
When somebody asks whether I support defunding the police, my answer begins with the belief that communities need effective law enforcement. People should be able to walk through their neighborhoods, raise their children, operate businesses, and grow old without constantly worrying about violence. Police officers have an important responsibility in providing that protection, especially when somebody is in immediate danger. At the same time, I have never believed that policing by itself can solve every problem that eventually becomes a crime problem. An officer arriving after shots have been fired is responding to something that may have been developing for years. Poverty, unemployment, struggling schools, addiction, and family problems can make life harder for individuals and communities. Neighborhood violence and limited opportunities can also create conditions where crime is more likely to grow. That does not excuse somebody who commits a violent act because people still have responsibility for their choices. But if we truly want to reduce crime, we also have to address some of the problems that can lead to it. To me, that requires a yes-and approach rather than an either-or approach. Yes, we need capable law enforcement, and yes, we also need strong community programs. Public safety becomes stronger when enforcement and prevention are working toward the same goal.
What Defunding the Police Means to Me
The phrase “defund the police” became one of those political expressions that could mean different things depending on who was saying it. Some people used it to advocate shifting certain responsibilities and funding from police departments toward mental health services, housing, youth programs, and other community resources. Others understood the phrase as dramatically reducing police departments or eliminating them altogether. Once a slogan carries that many meanings, it becomes difficult to have a sensible conversation about it. I prefer talking about what communities actually need instead of spending all my time fighting over three or four words. If a neighborhood is experiencing shootings, residents need somebody capable of responding quickly and investigating violent crime. If a person is experiencing a mental health crisis, there may also be situations where trained mental health professionals should be involved. If young people are wandering around all summer with no jobs, activities, or opportunities, prevention programs may help steer some of them toward something constructive. None of those approaches has to cancel out the others. Government can demand effective policing while investing in the social conditions that make communities safer. That is why I do not see public safety as a choice between police officers and community investment.
Baltimore Offers an Important Lesson
Baltimore has become an interesting example because the city has experienced major declines in homicides and other forms of violent crime in recent years. Mayor Brandon Scott has emphasized a broader public-safety strategy rather than presenting policing and prevention as enemies of each other. The city’s approach has included law enforcement along with violence-intervention programs aimed at people and neighborhoods facing the highest risks. That kind of strategy makes sense to me because violent crime is often concentrated among a relatively small number of individuals and locations. If authorities know who is driving serious violence, they can focus attention where it may have the greatest effect. At the same time, people who are willing to change need legitimate alternatives. A young man cannot be told to leave the streets and then be offered absolutely nothing to replace the money, identity, or belonging he found there. Job programs, mentorship, education, counseling, recreation, and credible community intervention can provide another direction. None of that eliminates the need to arrest people who continue committing serious crimes. It simply recognizes that preventing the next shooting is just as important as solving the last one.
Accountability Has to Remain Part of the Plan
I also believe we have to be careful not to talk about prevention as though consequences no longer matter. There are people who repeatedly commit serious crimes and create genuine danger for everybody around them. Communities should not be expected to tolerate violent behavior because somebody had a difficult childhood or lacked opportunities. Understanding why crime happens is different from excusing the person who commits it. Good public policy has to be able to hold both ideas at the same time. We can understand the conditions that contribute to violence while still demanding accountability from people who hurt others. Focused enforcement can sometimes be more effective than treating an entire neighborhood as suspicious. Police and prosecutors can concentrate resources on individuals believed to be driving serious violence while allowing community organizations to work with people who are willing to choose another direction. That approach requires accurate information, due process, responsible policing, and community trust. If any of those pieces disappear, the strategy can become abusive or ineffective. Strong enforcement should mean intelligent enforcement, not simply putting more people in handcuffs and calling the problem solved.
Give Young People Something to Walk Toward
One thing I strongly believe is that young people need more than somebody telling them what not to do. We have to give them something worthwhile to walk toward. A summer job can look like a small thing until you remember what that first paycheck can mean to a teenager. Work can teach responsibility, punctuality, cooperation, money management, and the satisfaction of earning something for yourself. Recreation programs can provide structure during hours when young people might otherwise have nothing productive to do. Mentors can introduce them to adults whose lives show possibilities they may not regularly see around them. Schools can connect students with trades, colleges, apprenticeships, technology, arts, business, and other pathways into adulthood. None of those programs will prevent every crime, and we should not make promises they cannot keep. But prevention does not have to be perfect to be worthwhile. If a program helps some young people build productive lives, that means families and neighborhoods may avoid pain that otherwise could have followed them for years. Investing in young people is not being soft on crime; it is trying to reduce the number of future victims and offenders before police ever have to become involved.
Police Need Community Trust Too
Effective policing depends on more than badges, patrol cars, equipment, and budgets. Officers need information from people who actually live in the neighborhoods they are trying to protect. Witnesses have to believe they can come forward without putting themselves in unnecessary danger. Parents need enough trust to call the police when trouble is developing instead of waiting until somebody gets hurt. Young people need to understand that every encounter with law enforcement does not automatically make them an enemy. Police officers also need to understand the history and experiences that have caused some communities to distrust them. That relationship cannot be repaired through slogans from either political side. It requires professionalism, accountability, communication, fairness, and time. Officers who abuse their authority should be held accountable because misconduct damages the credibility of everybody wearing the uniform. At the same time, officers doing difficult and dangerous work responsibly deserve the resources, training, and support necessary to do it well. Community trust and strong policing should reinforce each other rather than compete with each other.
I Want Results More Than Political Slogans
I have reached an age where political slogans interest me a whole lot less than whether something actually works. People can argue all day about being tough on crime or being progressive on crime while families are still burying loved ones. I want to know whether fewer people are being shot. I want to know whether children can play outside without somebody telling them to get down because gunfire started around the corner. I want to know whether young people have meaningful alternatives before the streets recruit them. I want to know whether police are solving serious crimes while treating citizens fairly. I also want to know whether people leaving prison have a realistic opportunity to build a lawful life instead of being pushed directly back toward the circumstances that got them in trouble. Those questions matter more to me than which political side gets credit. A successful public-safety strategy may contain ideas that traditionally come from both sides of the political argument. If something is reducing violence without sacrificing people’s rights, I am willing to pay attention. Public safety should be measured by safer lives, not louder politics.
Prevention and Enforcement Belong Together
The more I think about public safety, the more convinced I become that prevention and enforcement should not be treated as opposites. Prevention tries to keep somebody from becoming tomorrow’s victim or offender. Enforcement deals with people who are creating danger today. A healthy community needs the ability to do both. Police cannot mentor every troubled teenager, provide every summer job, treat every addiction, or repair every broken family. Community programs cannot chase an armed suspect, investigate a homicide, or respond to every violent emergency. Expecting either side to perform the other’s entire job is unrealistic. The better question is how these institutions can work together without confusing their responsibilities. Government should invest in law enforcement where law enforcement is necessary and community services where those services can prevent problems from escalating. That approach may not fit neatly onto a protest sign or campaign slogan. But complicated problems usually require more than one answer.
Summary
I do not believe effective public safety requires choosing between police funding and community investment. Communities need capable law enforcement to respond to violence and hold dangerous offenders accountable. They also need prevention programs that address conditions contributing to crime before violence occurs. Baltimore’s recent experience has helped renew attention to strategies combining enforcement with community-based violence intervention. Youth employment, education, mentoring, and recreation can provide alternatives that policing alone cannot create. At the same time, community programs cannot replace the essential functions of law enforcement. Police departments need proper training, accountability, resources, and community trust. Prevention and enforcement serve different purposes, but both can contribute to safer neighborhoods. Political slogans often make the issue sound simpler than it really is. I am more interested in measurable results than ideological labels. The real goal should always be fewer victims and safer communities.
Conclusion
So if somebody asks me whether I support defunding the police, my answer is no. But that answer does not mean I believe we can police our way out of every social problem. I want effective law enforcement and serious investment in communities at the same time. I want officers prepared to deal with dangerous people and programs prepared to reach young people before danger becomes their way of life. I want accountability when crimes are committed and opportunity before somebody decides crime is their only option. I want police departments that communities can trust and communities willing to work with good officers. None of that strikes me as contradictory. It sounds like common sense applied to a complicated problem. We have spent enough years arguing about which side should win while families continue losing sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, and friends to violence. Public safety should not belong exclusively to the political left or the political right. It ought to belong to everybody who wants people to make it home alive.