The Illusion of Public Safety: Analysis of Policing, Power, and the Design of Social Control

Policing in the United States has long been framed as a system designed to protect and serve. But who is it protecting? Who is it serving? And perhaps more importantly, who is it controlling? If we strip away the layers of political rhetoric, the legacy of policing reveals a structure built not for safety in the communal sense, but for social order in a hierarchical one.

The argument that “the system is not broken, it is functioning as designed” forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: policing was never meant to protect all communities equally. It was never built with the intention of providing security to the marginalized, the poor, or communities of color. Instead, it was structured to manage, contain, and discipline them. To understand this, we must go beyond surface-level critiques of policing and interrogate its foundations, its contradictions, and the ways in which it perpetuates cycles of harm.

1. The Historical Blueprint: Policing as an Instrument of Control

The origins of modern policing in America can be traced back to two distinct yet interconnected systems of control:

Slave Patrols in the South: These forces were created explicitly to track, capture, and punish enslaved Black people who sought freedom. Their role was not to ensure justice but to maintain the racial and economic order that kept slavery intact.
Industrial Urban Policing in the North: In growing cities, police forces were established to protect property and maintain the status quo for the ruling class. They were deployed to suppress labor movements, control immigrants, and quell unrest among marginalized groups.

These historical roots matter because they shaped the fundamental role of police: not as neutral arbiters of justice, but as enforcers of social stratification. When we see policing disproportionately targeting Black and Brown communities today, we are not witnessing a failure of the system—we are witnessing its intended function.

2. The Paradox of Over-Policing and Under-Policing

One of the most striking contradictions in law enforcement today is the coexistence of both over-policing and under-policing in marginalized communities.

Over-Policing: Low-income neighborhoods experience an overwhelming police presence in everyday life. Residents are stopped, searched, frisked, and monitored for minor infractions. Traffic stops become an excuse for intrusive investigations. Loitering laws, curfew laws, and “broken windows” policing create a perpetual cycle of criminalization.
Under-Policing: When serious crimes occur—such as assaults, burglaries, or homicides—police response times are slow, investigations are lackluster, and justice is often elusive. A woman in Louisiana summed it up perfectly: “The police are everywhere in my neighborhood—except when I need them.”

This contradiction is not incidental. It serves a function. By over-policing minor offenses and under-policing violent crimes, the system maintains a narrative that criminality is inherent to certain communities while simultaneously ensuring that real safety remains elusive.

3. Crime Prevention or Social Discipline? The Illusion of Safety

If the presence of police were truly about crime prevention, then one would expect neighborhoods with the highest levels of policing to be the safest. Instead, we see the opposite.

Despite heavy surveillance, drug markets persist.
Despite aggressive policing, violent crime remains concentrated in certain communities.
Despite mass incarceration, recidivism rates remain high.

Why? Because policing is not designed to prevent crime in any meaningful way. Instead, it is designed to manage and contain it within certain populations.

Traffic stops, for example, are often justified as measures to enforce road safety. Yet, they are disproportionately used as pretexts to search Black drivers for contraband, leading to a higher likelihood of unnecessary escalations, arrests, and fatalities. Similarly, stop-and-frisk policies, once championed as crime-fighting tools, disproportionately targeted Black and Brown men while yielding minimal results in terms of actual crime reduction.

The question then becomes: If police know where the drug dealers are, why do they still operate? If police know which streets are hotspots for violence, why does the violence continue? The answer lies in the fact that police do not function as an intervention force, but rather as a containment force.

By keeping certain communities in a state of perpetual instability—through incarceration, surveillance, and disruption—the system ensures that the larger social and economic order remains undisturbed.

4. Redesigning Safety: What Would a Just System Look Like?

If the current model of policing is built on control rather than safety, then what would a truly just system look like? James Forman Jr. suggests a vision where policing is restructured to focus on serious violent offenses while shifting other responsibilities to professionals better suited to handle them. Some key areas of reform include:

A. Removing Police from Non-Criminal Matters

Wellness checks should not end in death. The tragic cases of Atatiana Jefferson and Sonia Massey illustrate the fatal consequences of sending armed officers to situations that require mental health professionals, social workers, or crisis intervention teams. Expanding the role of community-based first responders could prevent unnecessary escalations.

B. Ending the Use of Traffic Stops as a Pretext for Criminalization

Traffic enforcement should not be a means of racial profiling. If road safety is truly the goal, then automated enforcement measures (such as cameras) could replace discretionary traffic stops, reducing racial disparities in policing.

C. Investing in Prevention Rather Than Punishment

If we are serious about reducing crime, then we must address its root causes:

Lack of economic opportunity
Educational disparities
Mental health crises
Substance abuse disorders

Redirecting funding from policing to social services, education, and economic development has been shown to reduce crime rates more effectively than aggressive law enforcement.

D. Community Control Over Public Safety

Rather than policing being dictated by external forces, communities should have a say in how public safety is structured. This could include:

Civilian oversight boards with real power to hold police accountable
Participatory budgeting to allocate resources to non-police safety initiatives
Restorative justice programs that prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration

These changes require more than just incremental reform. They require a fundamental shift in how we think about justice, accountability, and community well-being.

5. The Structural Barriers to Change

Even as calls for reform grow louder, systemic obstacles remain:

Institutional Resistance: Police unions, lawmakers, and entrenched power structures resist change, often using fear-based rhetoric to justify their existence.
Public Misinformation: Many Americans still equate more police with more safety, despite evidence to the contrary. The media often reinforces this narrative by focusing on crime without addressing systemic factors.
Political Calculations: Politicians often exploit crime fears for electoral gain, using “law and order” messaging to rally support.

However, history has shown that transformation is possible. The abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and the dismantling of apartheid all seemed impossible—until they weren’t. The same applies to policing.

Conclusion: From Control to Care—Reimagining Public Safety

The core question remains: What should public safety look like in a just society?

Policing, as currently designed, is not broken—it is working exactly as intended. It functions as a system of control, not protection.
Over-policing and under-policing are two sides of the same coin. The presence of law enforcement is not about safety but about containment and surveillance.
Real safety comes from investment, not incarceration. Addressing the root causes of crime is more effective than punitive enforcement.
Change is difficult, but not impossible. History has shown that oppressive systems can be dismantled when people demand it.

The challenge before us is not just to reform policing, but to reimagine what justice, accountability, and safety can truly mean. The choice is between maintaining a system designed to control—or building one designed to care.