As criminal justice has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, progressives have taken to raising doubts regarding the legitimacy of our law enforcement institutions. One such skepticism is of the police and its ability to fulfill its stated purpose to “Protect and Serve.” Police reform is an admirable goal, but as conservatives we must first dispel myths about our police while understanding what their role is.
Social institutions, such as the police, the state, religion and marriage, keep society stable not only by dealing with issues arising from human nature, but also by preventing one from pursuing selfish interests at the expense of the common good. Social institutions have an etiological function, or a function determined by its selection and replication throughout history rather than some inherent property they possess. This is why despite some differences, societies’ police forces look and operate similar to one another regardless of ideology and geography. Whether it’s a libertarian-socialist community like the Zapatista, or a European capitalist democracy like Switzerland, or an authoritarian theocracy like Iran, their police operate in a similar manner. The police operate this way because a model has been selected, or replicated as an institution for a function: to prevent law-breaking or criminality. For example, whether it’s in Switzerland, the U.S., or Iran, the police have prisons to house those who offend the law, vehicles to transport themselves, codes of conduct to ensure proper behavior, legitimate use of force, patrolling and a hierarchical ranking system.
Over time, new methods of policing can emerge and are not always uniform. These new functions can eventually become the normal functions of the institution when they are replicated over time, but until then they are derived proper functions.
Some say they do not support the police because the police uphold the state’s monopoly on violence, but this is due to a misunderstanding of the state’s role. The first and foremost goal of any state is to secure the monopoly on violence in order to prevent fractional conflict and defend the rights of the individuals from one another. Only then can we have a functional society in which our rights are enshrined and defended from one another’s interests when they conflict. The state can sometimes overreach and be abusive, but just because an entity fails in its function at times or is abused by man does not mean that it is without a legitimate function. Even if our rights are innate and given by divine authority, they still need some sort of secular force to back them.
Organizations such as Black Lives Matter have stated with utter certainty that “We know the police don’t keep us safe.” This is due to the perception of institutional racism in American police forces, and due to the skepticism regarding the ability of police to deter crime. But this is not really the case.
Even if we grant the idea that a minority neighborhood experiences higher rates of force or lower trust between law enforcement and citizens as a result of systemic racism, an increased police presence in those neighborhoods still leads to a decrease in crime, which outweighs any sort of misconduct that can be addressed without overhauling the entire institution. If an increase in police makes minority communities less safe, then one must explain why after several years most American racial groups still have not only a mostly favorable view of police, but feel the need for more policing in their communities. In fact, black Americans are 20% more likely than white Americans to say they want more police officers, and 23% less likely to claim that their communities had enough police presence per a 2015 Gallup poll. Even in 2020 per Yahoo!’s Race and Politics survey, despite a decline in trust, the majority of black Americans still saw a need for an increased police presence. Based on current data, even without wide-scale police reform, it appears that police intervention and increased presence do deter crime. This is the case regardless of racial demographics, income, age or gender.
Klick, MacDonald and Grunwald (2016) research on campus police found that extra police on adjacent city blocks decreased crime in that area by 43%-73%, which is consistent with other similar experiments. Sampson and Cohen (1988), looked at the robbery rates of 171 American cities in 1980, and found that proactive policing effectively reduced the rates of robbery, and the racial group which experienced the biggest decrease in robberies was black Americans. This further diminishes the claim that the police are a net danger to black Americans, especially considering the progress made in racial justice in the 33 years since the publishing of this study.
Next, a Berk and MacDonald 2010 paper examined eight years of data from the Safer Cities Initiative, which was a policing intervention that focused on Los Angeles’ skid row, or areas of crime and homeless encampment. The study found that the data provides support for geographically targeted police interventions as evidence-based policy and that crime in homeless encampments can be reduced by police intervention. Homelessness itself must be combatted via effective economic and social policy, but policing is a vital step to ensure the safety of the homeless and communities they inhabit.
One alternative argument is that the gun laws of an area may affect the crime rates more than policing, but there is not any evidence that the gun laws are enough. Numerous studies demonstrate that crime is indeed deterred by police intervention and not just pushed to other locations. Mello (2018) also found that some cities which got grants as a result of the Great Recession stimulus had an increase of 3.2% in police force resulting in a statistically significant decrease in crime, with a sharper drop in violent crime compared to nonviolent crimes.
If an increased number of police leads to a decrease in crime and therefore an increase in community safety, this has substantial implications for police reform initiatives. We cannot demonize the police or attempt to defund them as such moves would lead to fewer individuals wanting to become police officers, not only out of the negative stigma, but also since defunding could come at the cost of police salaries and bonuses. Any sort of increased police training, hiring of social workers, community programs or bureaucratic oversight also necessitates an increase in funds or a diversion of funds from somewhere else. It is also worth noting that since the funding and operation of police departments is very decentralized, funding and support are not uniform which results in some departments in America often being underfunded and their police not being compensated enough for their efforts.
The police are a vital aspect of any nation that seeks to guarantee the rights and safety to its citizens in order to achieve the end of politics: human flourishing. As conservatives we do not think the police are a perfect, divine institution. We must critique the police where needed in order to continue to improve the quality of policing. However, we do realize that many efforts proposed by police reformists have been both counterproductive and contrary to the evidence we currently have at hand, leading to the need to push more productive reform measures.
