Harry's Gang: 'Defund police' mantra isn't as radical as it sounds

I have to admit, I really rolled my eyes when people started chanting “defund the police” following the events surrounding George Floyd’s death at the hands of law enforcement.

It just sounds crazy. Sure, we get emotional over police brutality and misconduct, so it’s tempting to think eliminating the police department would solve the problem.

But who would keep the peace? Who would track criminals and arrest lawbreakers? Who would do what we need police to do?

Then I started to think about it. “Defund the police” is a silly rallying cry, but reallocating tax resources to better solve crime just might have some merit.

Jerry Seinfeld used to joke that cops, who once spent a lot of time walking beats, could grab a broom and help clean up a little. It got a laugh, but we don’t want highly trained police officers sweeping streets. That’s not what they are hired to do any more than teachers are hired to babysit our kids or firefighters obliged to get cats out of trees.

We can’t expect cops to solve racial inequities, eliminate poverty, treat mental health, or curb drug abuse. That is just not what police are supposed to do. But that doesn’t mean cops aren’t expected to participate in such work.

Take drug court, for example. If we spend more time and energy on preventing drug offenders from causing more crime, the police won’t be as busy, in theory. We have a drug court here in our district. I spoke with retired judge Carol Person, who was the first to preside over a drug court in Duluth. She told me that the court is an effective tool in curbing recidivism, which is good for both the defendant and for law enforcement.

“The goal of drug court was based on this premise: Many criminal offenses are related to addiction, like crimes committed to get money for drugs or committed under the influence of drugs. Getting offenders into treatment so they could achieve and maintain sobriety would reduce crime and recidivism and reduce the workload of the police. That would reduce law enforcement costs,” Person said.

There are expectations of participants. They are expected to get jobs to support their families, pay taxes, regain pride and keep busy — with the goal that it all will reduce the urge to use drugs. Addiction is a disease. Treating it as a disease is a more effective crime reduction tool than criminalizing addiction.

Dealers aren’t allowed to participate in drug court. Violent offenders are excluded as well.

“Our drug court team consisted of police, probation officers, public defenders, treatment specialists and others,” Person said. “It was intense.”

And it was effective. “Skeptics, including the police, became believers,” Person told me.

She sent me this story: An Illinois police officer pulled over a vehicle with expired plates. The driver didn’t have a valid license. He told the officer that he was on his way to a job interview and didn’t have any other way of getting there, and that’s why he was driving illegally. Instead of issuing him a ticket, the officer drove him to his interview, the driver got the job, and was set on a path of getting his life together.

Police officers should not be regularly giving rides to people in this way; that’s not what they are trained to do. But maybe they are trained to, perhaps, call a cab when it’s appropriate? I’m not sure. Defunding the police without a clear plan for combating crime would be foolish. But with some careful reallocations, we may have a better use of our tax money to solve crime problems.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News and an attorney in Esko who hosts the talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7. Contact him at [email protected].