Society today is now confronted with the consequences of the decades-long apathetic growth towards the injustices that permeated our political and legal systems. a problem achieved by the utilization of emotionalism in the passing of laws that advocates of civil liberties warned would have far-reaching negative consequences. Simultaneously we are faced with having allowed the left to go unchecked for the last few decades.
Succinctly put, we can no longer kick the can down the road, and the vast majority of Americans realize it. Leading some to take a hard look at the problem, some to double down on the problem, and others such as Youtuber YongYea to advocate for defunding the police on Twitter.
There are a lot of misconceptions going around on what it means to “defund the police”. To make a long story short: pic.twitter.com/O9hS1jBKG5
— YongYea (@YongYea) June 8, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As other users pointed out the hypocrisy and ignorance, Yong maintains an air of civility rather than devolving into flagrant insults,”ism” accusations, and vulgarities. Though it is readily apparent, his understanding of the matter is severely lacking, and this is a hot take that has not gone over too well for him.
To my community, thanks for sticking around. I know you want me to mainly talk games, but the second people stay silent on this issue, the perpetrators win. They want us to get tired & stop talking so things go back to how they were. Keep pressure on. That’s how change happens.
— YongYea (@YongYea) June 5, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I’m not American born, but America is my home. As of June 2020, I’ll have spent half my life in this country. It’s given me a lot and I care deeply about its people & its future. I want a better tomorrow, free of racism & police brutality. That happens by doing what we can today.
— YongYea (@YongYea) June 5, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Frankly, no, you cannot undo the problems we face “today.” These problems have numerous and complex origins that by their very nature, mean it will be generations till the difficulties and hostilities are entirely gone. When you advocate for non-solutions to a problem you have done no research for, you reveal you are only interested in looking virtuous, not actually improving the condition of your fellow man.
There is no greater a non-solution than defunding the police. Even when taking the “claimed position” that what the left means is to shift resources into giving people free housing, mental health services, and community organizations at face value, it still doesn’t solve any of the problems. When the state has already failed at exercising the passage and implementation of the law, how can they be reasonably expected to be the arbiters of mental health, housing, and community organization?
Though Yong himself is not guilty of accusing people of being Nazis, the people whose idea he is advocating sure are. Making it very hypocritical, their plan is essentially National Socialist People’s Welfare combined with Hitler’s Youth.
To illustrate the scope of the complexity of the issue at hand and to demonstrate why defunding the police will not result in any meaningful solution, the following will be an examination of the issue itself. Of importance without funding, the only thing that will emerge is more Detroit-style “no policing beyond this point” zones in the United States. Along with the rise of Right-Wing Milita’s who will carry out similar functions to what the police currently do, but with less political law and more accountability.
That is far from hyperbole, as some will claim. With the dissolution of order in Minneapolis by its Democrat administration, civilians have banded together and now patrol the streets. In the Tri-Cities region of Washington State, a right-wing militia has already arisen to defend the region. The examples of the phenomenon already beginning are not limited to these, but these two prove the point.
Examining the issues that lead to the police’s actions is rather involved and lengthy. By no means will this be exhaustive, nor will everyone agree with every point. The intention is to provide an overview of multiple aspects and positions raised that directly tackle the issue in meaningful ways. Rather than demanding more socialism or attempting to pretend there isn’t a problem as the right-wing SJWs and statists have taken to doing.
Chiefly the first root cause that needs to be addressed is the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Co-written by Joe Biden, the bill expanded private prisons, militarized the police, escalated the failed war on drugs, solidified the Duluth model, forced gun control through, eliminated educational reform for inmates, established the now abused sex offenders registry (don’t streak), created civil rights violating felonies, and put the three-strikes policy into the national level. Albeit in a slightly more practical level than California does.
Resulting in prison overcrowding becoming fairly commonplace, the justice system becoming overloaded and forced to rely on plea deals, all with an impact on actual crime being considered neglitible at best.
Yet, those that want to defund the police never mention repealing in its entirety or partiality the act. Even though doing so would remove many of the issues people have with law enforcement. Add to that ending the failed war on drugs, and we would see the police’s responsibilities shift towards a socially beneficial role rather than acting as the enforcers of the state. Something both civilian and law enforcement would greatly appreciate.
Libertarians like Justin Amash present other reforms that are worth examining.
End qualified immunity.
End civil asset forfeiture.
End the drug war.
End overcriminalization.
End no-knock warrants.
End militarization of police.
End mandatory minimums.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 7, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The most controversial suggestion is ending Qualified Immunity, which Wikipedia defines as: Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law which shields government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violate “clearly established” federal law. The argument against ending this is it would prevent police from being able to carry out the function of their duty. Yet before its introduction in 1967, the police didn’t seem to have a single issue performing their job within the scope of the rule of law.
Civil asset forfeiture is essentially the government permitting itself to steal from the people. It was initially used as a doctrine during the prohibition era to grant the police the right to enforce the unconstitutional ban on alcohol. Its modern iteration stems from the war on drugs with the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This gave the government the power to seize your assets with the justification and promise that it would be used against drug cartels. Since then, it has been used vastly beyond its original scope drawing in many controversies and legal challenges. One would think abolishing this blatantly unconstitutional practice would be high on the defund the police’s crowds agenda. Given that it transforms law enforcement into a kneecapped competition to other organized crime syndicates.
Ending the drug war is relatively self-explanatory. The Drug War, aka The War on Drugs, is a set of legal standards and laws that were passed to grant the government more power. It is not the notion of stopping controlled substances from being sold illegally. Delving into the innumerable failings of this “war” would vastly surpass the scope of this article. It is so vast entire books are dedicated to its shortcomings while still failing to be definitive in their scope. That is before even adding to it the Contra Scandal or the CIA’s role in the crack epidemic.
Let alone the revelations Obama’s administration had the federal agencies working with drug cartels. See the Fast and Furious Operation, as reported by the National Review, where the US was arming drug cartels for a glimpse at the tip of that iceberg.
Over-criminalization is the term for the excessive amount of laws on the book that have absolutely nothing to do with maintaining public order or safety. Stemming primarily from the War on Drugs, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act combining with social engineering laws, overcriminalization has resulted in massive overcrowding issues in prisons and lead to the US having the worlds largest prison population. Despite being one of the safest nations on Earth to live when one removes black on black crimes from the count.
No-Knock warrants are a blatant violation of your fourth amendment rights and have cost taxpayers millions when the police screw up (often without being even indited for their mistake). Right now, everyone is focusing on Breonna Taylor’s death during a no-knock raid. Mainly because she is a black female, but few care about the likes of Jordan Fricke, who in 2019 shot and killed an officer who was carrying out a no-knock raid, as reported by CBS. He will now spend life in prison.
Fortunately for him, the established case law has routinely set the precedent you have the legal right to kill a cop who doesn’t announce themselves when they break into your house. Before he is freed, he will likely spend a good deal of his life in jail. Even in that position, he is lucky as no-knock raids have a higher body count than the Clintons.
There is no justification for this practice. It undermines trust in the police, it gets innocent people killed or maimed, and those that defend themselves, if they survive, are charged with felonies they could not know they were committing at the time.
The militarization of police has amply been covered, so there is no reason to reiterate on the point. The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation aptly explains the issues surrounding minimum sentencing laws.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws force a judge to hand down a minimum prison sentence based on the charges a prosecutor brings against a defendant which result in a conviction — usually a guilty plea. Many states have such laws. These laws take away from a judge the traditional and proper authority to account for the actual circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the individual defendant when imposing a sentence.
–
In essence, Congress abandoned the idea that Federal judges — appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate — have the wisdom and training to identify the most serious drug offenders and punish them appropriately. That authority had been limited by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which was designed to eliminate the previous widespread disparity in sentencing across the country due to wholly unguided discretion. The Sentencing Reform Act authorized the development of sentencing guidelines for federal judges. For over two decades beginning in 1987, the sentencing guidelines had a near-mandatory quality, and provided for sentences for drug quantities greater than the minimum trigger quantities in the drug statute (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)), and provided for sentences longer than the mandatory minimum sentence for that drug. The mandatory minimum drug laws and the sentencing guidelines have contributed to the dramatic growth of the federal prison system which has become the largest prison system in the United States.
Mandatory sentences have the effect of transferring sentencing power from judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors frequently threaten to bring charges carrying long mandatory minimum sentences and longer guidelines sentences. These threats are effective in scaring a defendant to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence and to give up every factual and legal basis for a defense. As a result, every year at least 95 percent of federal drug defendants plead guilty.
If you ever wondered why innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, it is often because of prosecutorial abuse. Prosecutors often levy a significant quantity of charges at defendants. Many of which one will find difficult to prove they didn’t do, leaving the defendant the option to either sign a plea agreement to a singular lesser charge or kiss the rest of his natural life goodbye.
Yes, the legal system is in dire need of reform. Restoring liability to prosecutors and judges would be a great start as they are currently legally immune from anything they do in court. Regardless of whether it is legal or not.
As demonstrated, this is an extremely complex problem that does not boil down to “hur dur police are racist.” Even without delving into police unions, lobbying, protectionism, police training by Israeli firms, we can see there is a long way to fixing the system, not for Blacks, but for everyone. There is no quick way to solve these problems. Nor is there a simple way either. Some of the laws do have a practical application, and their abolishment is not an idea solution. Instead the target goal would be reform, restrictions, and giving people recompense when the system fails the individual.
This is the reality of the situation we face and is the reason why Democrats and the media push so hard to make you think it is a matter of racism. The simple reality is the moment the divide and rule ends, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Latino, and everyone else are going to realize who their real collective enemies are and who acted as their propaganda agents for decades. That is the future keeping the establishment up at night.
Anyone that argues “defund the police”, has no idea what they are talking about. These people are merely latching onto a popular political idea that, by no measure, has a chance at succeeding. For it tells the police to continue to do the blatantly unconstitutional and socially despised actions, but with fewer officers and no protections against public scorn. In short, it is a recipe for disaster, not a utopia; these ideological zealots believe will emerge afterward.