The idea of “law and order” is an outdated phrase that simply masks the systemic inequity that is consistently unaddressed in this country.

T/W: Discussion of rape/sexual assault.

Police brutality has become the norm in the United States. Through media amplification and the efforts of activists around the country, we hear names of new victims monthly. Weekly. Daily. It feels as though there is always a new victim, a new story breaking out, and a new call for reform. 

Many activists and organizers have called for diversity training and other reforms as proposals to fix the existing forms of policing. Though these calls are well intended, reform under an institution designed to uphold oppressive tactics will only further perpetuate violence. The existing system of policing has allowed and encouraged misconduct, and despite its public revelation, there continues to be no accountability for victims. Time and time again we have had to come to terms with the fact that police have utilized their authority to abuse power. Time and time again we are reminded that the officers who abuse this power feel as though they are above the law.   

We must consider abolishing the police. Abolition can only happen in a world where police are not necessary, therefore it is considered a process — not an abrupt elimination of the existing system. This means that we must take steps in reform in order to make the police completely obsolete. Though controversial, abolition remains the only solution that would definitively end the atrocities committed under our current system. The desperate need for abolition is especially obvious when we look at some of the police system’s most egregious failures: sexual assault cases and mental health crises. 

Part 1: Sexual Assault

There is significant evidence within police departments of misconduct regarding rape-related cases. This is especially alarming considering how difficult it is for victims to achieve justice  — out of every 100 rape cases, only about 18 actually lead to an arrest. Why? It is unfortunate, but prosecutors often decide not to file charges, and some cases simply fall apart because they take too long to litigate. Oftentimes, police and prosecutors blame victims for being uncooperative throughout the process, potentially rendering a case inactive. 

When it comes to sexual violence cases, the strength of the evidence usually relies upon the credibility of the victim’s account of the incident. However, this course of action is compromised because the system is built to discredit rape victims, denying them due process of the law. When presented with a victim’s recollection of an assault, the jury is often warned about the harm of wrongfully convicting the defendant. This subtly implies that accusers are liars, clear evidence that there is no systemic interest in providing justice for victims. 

For the victim, this process is lengthy, and not all have the time, means, or emotional capacity to be able to come in for interviews consistently. Some experience intense trauma, sometimes even resulting in memory loss, which makes it difficult to recall every aspect of the incident. When victims later recall specifics of an incident, they are met with scrutiny — Annie Walker had trouble recounting the incidents of her assault, but later called police to provide more detail. Walker was met with accusatory questions from police regarding why she did not mention the new details earlier. This is a common experience: many victims experience renewed distress during police interactions, having to revisit the trauma and deal with unsympathetic officers who do not take the incident or victim seriously. If police are not sympathetic to victims, they may fail to provide exhaustive evidence to prosecutors. This frequently results in weak cases against victims’ perpetrators. 

When women report cases of sexual assault or rape, they are often dismissed or scrutinized by officers. A rape case in Austin, Texas was dropped because the perpetrators had said the sex had been consensual, and their word taken over the victim’s. Emily Borchardt was attending University of Texas when she was strangled by a male passenger in her rideshare. She woke up in a motel, and was sexually assualted for 12 hours by three men. She called 911 explaining the events of the incident, and she was later sent to the hospital. The detective told Borchardt that it “sounded consensual” because the three men had said she willingly participated. Borchardt was told her bruises were “not big enough.” Police and prosecutors consistently told her they did not believe her. 

This is a pattern: police treat victims poorly, victims are met with scrutiny and doubt, and cases are not resolved. 

When recounting the events surrounding her rape, Jennifer Welch Demski noted how an officer characterized the incident as a “dispute.” The officers had told her it was not sexual assault because she “didn’t fight back” and commented on Demski’s attractiveness in her license photo. This commentary was grossly inappropriate considering the sensitive nature of the report, but is all too common.  Studies have shown that police officers subscribe to the narrative that the victim instigated the incident, and that women should have resisted against the offender. Gender-biased policing, where law enforcement practices are rooted in both conscious and unconscious gender stereotypes, greatly impacts the outcome of sexual assault cases. 

It is horrific to know that women go through such traumatic experiences on a daily basis, but to know that most police departments are uncaring, inattentive, and victim-blaming numerous women is unjustifiable. This is how the police system works. The primary way police are trained to conduct interviews is not built for sexual assault victims. Law enforcement is trained to interview primarily for investigatory purposes, meaning they ask questions as if they are interrogating to receive a confession from a suspect. Officers have never been required to train to handle the delicacy of sexual assault cases. Rape culture, gender bias, stereotypes, and their intrinsic training all contribute to the perceptions officers have of victims. There have been no prior steps by police departments to reduce their issues regarding sexual assault cases. Reduction has never been the goal. 

If a woman’s abuser is a cop, who should she call? 

Not only is there an issue regarding the management of cases within these departments, but oftentimes, the officers themselves perpetuate the violence. In 2015, it was reported that an officer was caught engaging in sexual misconduct at least every 5 days. It was not until 2017 when it became illegal that police officers could claim that sex with someone under custody was consesual. Laws in many states have allowed officers to argue that sex with an arresting officer could be consensual, though the power dynamics speak otherwise. The police often abuse their power to commit heinous crimes, using their badge for immunity. Throughout history, those in power have used their privilege to perpetrate violence against women in society. They are aware of their protections and how much they can get away with. 

Out of the 38 largest police departments, only about half of them explicitly prohibit sexual intercourse with those in custody — in other words, rape. In 35 states, it is still legal. The bottom line is, the people who are “meant to prevent crime” are utilizing their power and privilege to perpetuate those same crimes against women — and they almost always get away with it. 

Why don’t we just hire more female cops?

Reformists argue that there is a necessity for more female police officers, but that argument has been made countless times with regard to race — and it has gotten us nowhere. Studies have also shown that female cops are not proven to be more sympathetic towards rape victims. This is unsurprising considering the patriarchal culture and flawed training of the police force. Diversifying the police department will not resolve the deeply rooted, systemic issues with these departments. Hiring more police within a flawed system will not fix the inherent issues. We are aware that police were never meant to prevent crime, so hiring more police will not somehow reduce the amount of crime being committed. 

Crime Prevention

There is no statistical evidence supported by scholars that proves increasing policing prevents crime within cities. Many analysts argue that crime data is used as a form of police propaganda — changes in crime levels are not necessarily correlated to the amount of police officers within those areas. Despite this, police are given credit, and receive more funding if crime rates go down — no matter the reason. Police utilize crime data fluctuation to frame their necessity for funding.

Police departments frame funding in two ways. When crime rates are high, they need more money to increase policing and the resources at their disposal. When crime rates are low,  departments need more money to maintain the circumstances.  No matter the crime statistics, police departments always argue for a higher budget. Many citizens find that funding would do better elsewhere, where it has tangible benefits: in education, housing, and health. 

Benefits of abolition (redistribution of funds) 

Regardless of how the specific officer feels about rape or victims, it is undeniable that there is a structural issue with the way this system handles cases regarding sexual assault. Despite the vast amount of resources and funding these police departments have, victims are consistently humiliated. Abolishing the police is the only solution that prioritizes victims’ needs when it comes to their terms of justice. This utilizes a method of transformative justice, which asks victims what they want in terms of justice. Under abolitionist framework, transformative justice acknowledges systemic perpetuated violence by police systems, and endorses healing, resilience, and safety. 

Many women already receive help they receive through mutual aid and communal services — they understand that police funds would be better spent on the services and aid that victims directly benefit from. This solution would redirect funding towards programs that help victims with their trauma, and to employ counselors who are equipped to handle situations regarding rape. 

Systemically, the police department has failed women. Officers are not equipped with the proper training to handle these cases, and they are frequently unsympathetic towards victims. Some police officers are the perpetrators themselves. They have not made any significant lasting efforts to prevent sexual assault, and have not showed themselves as trustworthy allies of the people they are sworn to protect. 

Many radical feminists have created rape prevention movements that offer crisis hotlines, workshops, self-defense courses, and legislative action groups. If the money used by police departments was invested into these programs, not only would it elevate the victims by serving them justice, but it would also allow for community healing. Collective Action for Safe Spaces offers training for bystander intervention to protect women in unsafe situations in universities and educates on rape culture to get to the root of the issues surrounding sexual assault by understanding stigmas and gender biases. Countless organizations like these exist — there is a need to divert the funding sitting in bloated police departments to be used more effectively. 

Part 2: Mental Illness

Similar to the vast amount of misconduct regarding sexual assualt cases, cases dealing with people who have mental illneses are greatly mishandled by the police. There are countless cases of individuals suffering from police violence, simply because police do not know how to handle a situation where someone shows signs of mental distress. 

Miles Hall was 23 years old and lived in Walnut Creek, California. Miles Hall was having a mental health episode, threatening his family, so his mother called 911 in the hopes the police would de-escalate the situation. The incident ended with Hall dead in the hospital after being shot by two police officers. Hall needed help, but he was met with the barrel of a gun pointed to his face. The officers of the incident faced no charges. Hall’s family, like many other activists, now push for mental health crisis teams to handle these situations rather than police officers. 

People with mental health issues are criminalized by police. 

In Salt Lake City, a 13-year-old autistic boy was shot by police. Lindon Cameron had a mental breakdown and ran away from his house when his mom, Golda Barton, decided to call 911 seeking help for her son. Barton explained that her son suffered from separation anxiety since she had gone back to work. Lindon began yelling and screaming, his sensory disorder triggered by the presence of the officers. While running, an officer shouted for him to “Get on the ground!” Cameron was subsequently shot eleven times. He was unarmed at the time of the incident. Cameron was in critical condition, but managed to recover from the gunshot wounds with serious injuries. This incident could have easily been prevented with the right de-escalation tactics.

More than 1 in 5 people fatally shot by police are mentally ill — people with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely than a person who does not have a mental illness to be shot in a police encounter. Under legal parameters, police are meant to call for psychiatric experts during the apprehension of a mentally ill person if they present a danger to themselves or others. But the law leaves it to police discretion to do what they think is right in the moment. There are, however, higher arrest rates when it comes to police officers and people who are mentally ill — this is because officers are unaware of the symptoms of severe mental disorders. They often assume that an individual is intentionally resisting or exhibiting defiance, when in reality they are suffering from a mental health crisis — one that police are not equipped to de-escalate.  

The police department is clearly not equipped to handle mentally ill individuals. Moreover, there is no accountability when officers make wrong choices, which are oftentimes fatal. We must assume that if a person is under a mental health crisis, the police will know how to deescalate the situation — but they have failed to demonstrate this. If a person with mental illness is already fearful and disoriented, police interaction will only exasperate that anxiety, and trigger worse symptoms.  

Benefits of abolition in regards to mental health 

Inexperienced police officers, coupled with systemic issues regarding a lack of training in de-escalation, have culminated in a massive failure for mentally-ill people. Consequently, funds from the police department should go towards community-based programs to offer services to those who may suffer from mental health crises. 

Many psychiatrists have spoken out about police violence against those with mental illnesses, calling for reduction of police encounters altogether. New York City is one of the first cities to implement a system of providing assistance from professionals regarding mental health crisis issues instead of police. Many healthcare providers urge that mental health issues are considered a public health issue rather than criminal, and therefore should not concern the police. 

With both cases of sexual assault and mental health, the police have demonstrated time and time again that they are not mentally or physically prepared to face these issues because they were, historically, never meant to help with these complex situations. Instead, their purpose was to further subdue the marginalized. 

History of policing

Before making the argument for police abolition, we must first understand the purpose of policing. Police, on both the state and federal level, claim to enforce public safety. It is clear that realistically, that hasn’t been the case. They are also generally supported more by upper-class Republicans — about 81 percent have favorable views of the police. This fact hints at the root of policing: it is a force that is grounded in protecting the upper class. It profits off of capitalism, colonization, and the exploitation of the poor. 

American policing, as we know it, originated in the 16 century as a form of slave patrol in the Carolinas. They enforced segregation, voter restrictions, Black Codes, indentured labor, and other systemically racist policies to repress formerly enslaved people. These “slave patrollers” responded to perceived “disorder” from enslaved people rather than crime, which evolved into modern forms of policing. By the 1900s, after the ratification of the 14th amendment, local police departments enforced Jim Crow laws, and those who disobeyed were met with severe violence. 

Oftentimes, the perspective of abolition is misconstrued due to its connections to radical change and a failure to understand the perspectives of abolitionists. Before abolition was brought into mainstream media and values, it was supported by Black and Indigenous organizers and activists. They grew tired of a system that abused and oppressed them for generations.

What types of reform should and should not be supported

So the question remains, if the police are not preventing crime, were not created to prevent crime, and are not convicting those who have perpetrated crimes against others, what is exactly their purpose? 

In the past year, with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, organizers and activists have called for reform. But we have already tried reform. We have tried it in numerous ways. In some states, the chokehold has been banned, yet there are still incidents of police killing people through use of the chokehold. Reform efforts are not harsh enough, and are rarely enforced effectively.

This is unsurprising considering police unions have significant power over the content of these reform efforts. These unions are political forces that claim to support reform, but really harm victims for their own profitable agenda. Legislations supported by these unions usually pass, supported by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Officers accused of misconduct are provided with highly skilled lawyers, and complaints are largely ignored. Other police-endorsed “liberal reforms” have only resulted in more public spending and the expansion of police departments. This only further exacerbates existing issues. These existing solutions are not the answer. 

How abolition would work 

A large misconception about abolition is that it means the immediate abandonment of police systems, leaving citizens vulnerable. That is not the case. The goal of this process is to reduce the necessity for police as a whole. This starts with initially reducing the police budget, and redirecting funds to programs that actually work. 

Many worry about reducing police budgets due to rising crime rates, but policing is not the only mechanism that can be utilized to reduce violence. There are numerous community-based programs that offer solutions that directly contribute to the reduction of crime, and they work. Their models are proven to be effective in large cities like New York and Baltimore. 

We must endorse reforms that are steps towards abolition. We need to offer reparations for victims of sexual assaults conducted by officers within these departments, and reparations for the families that have suffered from police violence. Primarily, we should support the reallocation of funds towards mutual aid and communal support groups.

Places like Oakland, California have voted to redirect police budgets to violence prevention programs. San Francisco, California has started redirecting police funding into Black communities. The American Rescue Plan passed, which helps fund appropriate mental health intervention. In Seattle, Washington, there are community-based programs to help victims of sexual assault, providing them with safety, and support. The bottom line is that community-based programming works. Statistics prove that these solutions are far more helpful for victims, and without  police involvement, incidents of misconduct and violence are far more rare.

“We want to make them obsolete” - Mariam Kaba, We Do This ‘Til We Free Us 

Historically, policing has served to violently subdue marginalized communities. We can see these shameful roots in incidents of  police brutality with the Black community, in misconduct with sexual assault cases, and in the mishandling of mental health crises. Policing attempts to mask  violent tactics as “justice.” This only further harms our society’s most vulnerable — whether intentional or not.

Abolition is not meant to destroy what currently exists, but rather, to create a society without violent policing. Change means thinking of infinite opportunities, where aid is communal and meaningful. Abolition is the only solution that can end this cycle of violence, and it is the most humble way our country can provide justice to its victims.