Should We Defund—or Abolish—the Police? A No-BS Breakdown of the Debate

“Defund the police” became a rallying cry in 2020, sparking passionate debate, media distortion, and endless social media hot takes. But even now, years later, the conversation often misses the real questions at the heart of the issue: What does defunding actually mean? Is police abolition even remotely realistic? And what do we do about people who simply cannot be reasoned with?

In this post, I want to break down the pros and cons of both defunding and abolishing the police—not from a tribal political perspective, but from a lens of practical logic, real-world psychology, and a healthy respect for both idealism and reality, inspired by my experience working in Corrections.

What Does “Defund the Police” Actually Mean?

First, let’s clarify: most proponents of “defund the police” don’t advocate for eliminating police departments entirely. Instead, they typically mean:

• Reallocating a portion of police budgets to community-based services that address root causes of crime, such as housing, mental health care, youth programs, and addiction treatment.

• Reducing the scope of police responsibilities, especially in nonviolent situations better handled by specialists.

• Reimagining public safety to focus more on prevention and support than on punishment and control.

In this context, “defunding” is essentially budget re-prioritization. And honestly, that makes sense. Do we really need an armed officer responding to a mental health crisis or a noise complaint?

The Case For Defunding

Advocates for defunding the police present several compelling arguments:

1. Police are tasked with too much: They’re often the first responders for mental health breakdowns, drug overdoses, family disputes, homelessness—you name it. They’re not trained for most of these issues, and their involvement can sometimes exacerbate the situation.

2. Police budgets are substantial: In some cities, police departments receive a significant portion of the municipal budget. For example, in 2020, Memphis allocated 38% of its general fund to policing.

3. Policing doesn’t address root causes: Arresting someone doesn’t fix poverty, trauma, addiction, or mental illness. It often compounds these problems by adding criminal records that hinder employment and housing opportunities.

4. Issues of violence and systemic bias: While not every officer is problematic, there is evidence of disproportionate use of force against marginalized communities. Reforms like body cameras and de-escalation training have had limited success in addressing these systemic issues.

Reallocating resources to community services could potentially reduce crime in the long term by addressing its underlying causes.

The Case Against Defunding (or Going Too Far)

However, there are significant concerns about reducing police funding too drastically:

1. Violent crime persists: Social support programs are vital, but they may not deter individuals who commit violent acts, such as homicides or assaults. Immediate, trained, and armed responses are necessary in these situations.

2. Police withdrawal can have unintended consequences: For instance, after Minneapolis pledged to dismantle its police department in 2020, the city experienced a surge in violent crime, leading to calls for increased police presence.

3. Implementation challenges: Transitioning responsibilities from police to social services requires significant infrastructure, training, and funding. Without proper planning, this shift could leave gaps in public safety.

What About Police Abolition?

Some activists advocate for the complete abolition of police departments, envisioning a society where community-led safety models, restorative justice, and unarmed response teams replace traditional policing.

The idea is that by investing in housing, health, education, and opportunity, most crime will disappear. For the remaining harmful individuals, nonviolent methods of accountability and rehabilitation would suffice.

While this vision is bold and optimistic, it raises critical questions about its feasibility.

The Problem With Abolition: Psychopathy and High-Risk Offenders

A significant challenge to the abolitionist perspective is the existence of individuals with psychopathic traits. Approximately 1% of the general population exhibits psychopathy, but this figure rises to 10–30% among incarcerated criminal offenders.

These individuals often:

• Commit a disproportionate share of serious crimes, including violence and fraud. As we used to say in Corrections, 50% of crime is committed by 5% of criminals.

• Exhibit manipulative behavior, lack empathy, and are resistant to traditional rehabilitation or early intervention methods.

• Exploit systems designed for rehabilitation, making them particularly challenging to manage without a structured enforcement mechanism.

Addressing the threat posed by such individuals requires a system capable of investigation, apprehension, and, when necessary, the use of force—functions traditionally associated with policing.

Restorative Justice: Effective but Limited

Restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm through facilitated meetings between victims and offenders, has shown promise in certain contexts, particularly among youth and nonviolent offenses.

However, its effectiveness relies on the offender’s willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing and make amends. For individuals with psychopathic traits, who often lack remorse and empathy, restorative justice may not be a viable solution.

At best, they’ll just use it to get out of harsher penalties and give the impression of cooperation or remorse.

A Realistic Middle Ground: Radical Reform

Given the complexities of crime and human behavior, a balanced approach may be more effective:

1. Invest in community services: Enhance mental health care, housing, education, and addiction support to address the root causes of crime.

2. Redefine police responsibilities: Limit police involvement in situations better handled by social workers or mental health professionals.

3. Implement robust training and accountability: Focus on de-escalation techniques, cultural competency, and establish independent oversight bodies to monitor police conduct.

4. Maintain specialized units for high-risk situations: Retain well-trained, accountable law enforcement units equipped to handle violent crimes and dangerous individuals.

This approach aims to reduce reliance on traditional policing while ensuring public safety is not compromised.

Conclusion: Balancing Idealism with Pragmatism

The movement to defund or abolish the police has sparked essential conversations about justice, equity, and public safety. While the vision of a society without police is inspiring, it’s crucial to acknowledge the practical challenges, especially concerning individuals who pose significant risks to others.

A nuanced approach that combines community investment with targeted law enforcement reform may offer a more feasible path toward a safer and more just society.