Progressives Aren’t Denying Crime

I’ve been studying crime for almost two decades now and there’s one thing that I’m very familiar with: people lying about crime.

I thought about hedging that and considering the possibility that they’re just misinformed, but at this point, the amount of energy it must take to remain misinformed kind of rules that out.

Zaid Jilani recently wrote a piece for The Atlantic titled, “Progressive Denial Won’t Stop Violent Crime”. According to Jilani, progressives are turning a blind eye to horrific violence and it isn’t progressive (or hysterical) to say so. The argument that progressives are clueless about violence hinges on one premise: that defunding the police means ignoring public safety.

Jilani also promotes the standard crime fear-mongering typical of right-wing pundits (even if he insists that he is not one himself), but it’s the “policing = public safety” component that is the most problematic.

This can’t be overstated enough: Policing is not synonymous with public safety. It isn’t now, and it never has been. Progressives (like me) who argue for defunding the police are not doing so because we think that violent crime isn’t a concern. We are arguing to defund the police because policing isn’t effective at stopping violent crime.

We want better public safety systems that actually address violent crime, and that also don’t result in inequitable outcomes for citizens based on race. Public safety systems that address a wider range of harm that befalls people, and doesn’t add to that harm.

We want communities that don’t have to live in fear of violence, that don’t have to listen to gunshots every night, that don’t have young men being murdered on a regular basis. We want communities where domestic violence is properly considered so that women aren’t victimized. We want safer communities, and we know that policing is not the answer.

We know that policing is not the answer because all of this violence exists in the presence of police departments with massive budgets and resources. We know that policing is not the answer because we can see police departments ignoring practices that are in the best interest of public safety.

All commentators like Jilani can do is try to muddy the water by claiming that more police is the answer to crime. It doesn’t matter that this argument is founded on absolutely nothing. It isn’t a rational argument, and it isn’t designed as one. It’s specifically crafted to play on people’s emotions; in particular, fear.

Fear is what drives policy. And make no mistake, the violent crime that we see in disadvantaged communities is a policy choice. It is a policy choice made by people who agree with Zaid Jilani. We could have cities that emphasized public safety and spent resources on promoting it. Instead, we have cities that seek to placate a wildly misinformed public by throwing money at police departments who refuse to even acknowledge that they’re doing anything wrong.

If they cared about government spending, they’d support redistributing police funds to more efficient programs. If they cared about violent crime, they’d support schools, social services, jobs programs, and (real) gun control. If they cared about public safety, they’d advocate for public safety. But they don’t.

The truth is that these people only care about one thing: maintaining social hierarchies. That’s what the police do best, and giving them more resources is the best way to ensure that people stay in their place.

I’m not surprised to see the same hateful, ignorant fear-mongering that the right-wing has been practicing for decades. But I’m still just as angry when I see it.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***