In the wake of the 2014 tragedy of Eric Garner’s death, momentum surrounding police
reform and unjustified use of lethal force gained attention in the media, sparking conversations
as to what next steps should be taken to protect civilian lives, especially those most marginalized
by police presence: racial minorities. The issue of reform compared to the abolition of the police
is investigated in the works of Franklin Zimring, Derecka Purnell, Michael Fortner, and Alex
Vitale, culminating in questions over which method is most beneficial.
The “them against us” mentality of the police prevents meaningful studies from being
conducted and prevents outsiders from being able to find the most meaningful reforms. For
example, in When Police Kill, Zimring quotes “quality control happens at a local level” as such,
no fact checking is done to assure the numbers are correct for police killings. This problem is
representative of a much larger issue within the police department: the lack of empirical science
in urban policing, especially when dealing with fatalities. (Zimring 98) This sentiment is shared
by Vitale who notes that “police should stop fighting requests from the public, researchers, and
media”. (Vitale 26) By opening the police departments up to more studies and research,
empirical evidence can be found as to what methods of policing are the safest for civilians, and
police officers. Looking at a historical policing tactic, the 21-foot rule informed officers to not
shoot people with sharp weapons until they were within 21 feet of the officer. While this method
has been widely adopted, it signifies a flaw at the most fundamental level of how police work, as
there is no evidence that this method saves the lives of police, and the earlier use of lethal force
by an officer increases the risk of death of a civilian. (Zimring 115) Zimring notes that “the
hundreds of killings” of people with “knives and blunt objects” are not necessary by the part of
the officer as these weapons pose no real threat to an officer’s life, with policy reforms the lives
of many can be saved annually. (Zimring 97)
Along the lines of the need for police reform, Fortner also comes to the conclusion that
“Transparency is popular,” similar to the findings of both Vitale and Zimring. (Fortner 46)
Fortner’s study, “Reconstructing Justice: Race, Generational Divides, and the Fight Over
“Defund the Police”, exhibits the need for reform, despite a small number of young African
Americans and white liberals who call for police abolition and defund movements. Fortner’s
work uncovers that “neither “abolition” nor severe cuts to police budgets appear to have the
requisite public support to be enacted” as Figure 26: Support for “Defund” by Age shows, all age
groups find reducing police budgets and redirecting the money more favorable to abolishing the
police completely, while the youngest age group (19-34) favored defunding and abolishing the
police more than any other age group. (Fortner 36,45) Fortner posits that police reform is the
necessary course of action, as most communities think of policing as vital. Fortner mentions
rebuilding the “civic infrastructure and social safety net” of black communities as an alternative
to abolishing the police. Broadening the public safety strategy by “diverting calls” to different
agencies can help end over policing of African Americans by utilizing “community groups and
non-law enforcement professionals”, while still keeping the option of the police available.
(Fortner 47) These alternatives redirect police budgets, instead of cutting them, and helps
promote an end to over policing of marginalized communities.
Looking at the reform-based arguments of Zimring and Fortner, critics would argue that
reform is not enough, that abolition is a more effective manner to end marginalization of black
and brown communities which are most affected by over policing and punitive measures.
Looking to Vitale’s book, The End of Policing, he argues that the only reform that can work is
“replacing police with communities working to solve their own problems,” following an
abolitionist argument. (Vitale 32) Vitale argues that the institution of policing is flawed. In the
case of police violence, the institution is more concerned about protecting its image rather than
addressing the issues at hand. In one instance, a cop threw a flashbang grenade into a child’s crib
during a raid where no drugs were found, and no arrests were made. (Vitale 28) Instead of
properly prosecuting the cop at fault, the prosecutor threatened to charge the family for the cop’s
misdoings. In instances like these, the system is clearly working against the people. How are
cops protecting anyone by throwing flashbang grenades into innocent toddler’s cribs? With this
sentiment in mind, Vitale argues that armed police might not be the “most appropriate tool” in
different societal situations, and that the police cannot be “an effective tool for community
empowerment” or “racial justice”. (Vitale33) Specifically, Vitale calls for a community-based
call to action which utilizes democracy to call upon the government, and focuses on the
community’s needs, rather than allowing the corrupt policing system to run communities.
Along the same lines as Vitale, Purnell’s article, How I Became a Police Abolitionist,
argues for the abolition of the police in a more radical sense. She draws attention to the fact that
abolishing the police means coming up with many different answers to harm in society, instead
of relying only on the police. She argues that with abolition, many drastic changes in society
must take place so the conditions that allow violence to occur can be eliminated. One such
example is reducing sexual violence. Purnell argues that providing “quality housing, food, day
care” among other things will help reduce sexual harm long term. By abolishing the police,
Purnell argues that society will do away with the institution that promotes “inequality and
ableism” in black communities. As reform makes police “quiet managers of inequality” by doing
away with the police, Purnell argues inequality will become obsolete.
A fair question is brought up when looking at the abolish the police movement: who do
you call when someone breaks into your house, or threatens you with a gun? By abolishing the
police, who will people call in communities that already have lots of violence if there is no
longer a police presence to “protect and serve” the community. While Purnell’s argument
attempts to address these issues, how quickly can citizens expect violence and crime to dissipate,
even in the case of increased resources for the reduction of violence? Moreover, in these
neighborhoods of extreme violence and crime, could the abolition of the police lead to an
increased crime incentive? The argument for abolishment seems to bring more questions than
answers, perhaps indicating that a more conservative approach of police reform would be most
beneficial, and can ultimately lead to a more drastic form of change.