Why We Should Not Defund the Police: The Case for Reform
This essay argues against the defund the police movement that gained momentum following the 2020 death of George Floyd. The paper examines what "defunding" actually means in practice, distinguishing between moderate reform voices and the more radical abolitionist goals of organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa. It contends that removing police funding would undermine law and order, potentially necessitating military intervention — an outcome worse than the problems critics seek to address. As an alternative, the essay advocates for re-funding police departments, raising recruitment and training standards, and implementing community policing strategies to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
- Introduction: The Defund the Police Debate: Thesis against defunding; advocates for police reform
- Who Drives the Defund Movement?: Radical groups versus broader community frustrations
- Why Police Funding Is Essential to Public Order: Funding necessity; military-state risk without police
- The Case for Reform: Training, Standards, and Community Policing: Re-funding, training, and community policing as solutions
- Conclusion: Summary restating reform over abolition argument
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clear, direct thesis that sets up both the counterargument it is addressing and the position it will defend, giving readers an immediate sense of the essay's purpose.
- It distinguishes between the broader public's frustration with police misconduct and the more radical abolitionist agenda of specific organizations, which adds nuance to what could otherwise be a one-dimensional argument.
- The essay uses a logical cause-and-effect structure — showing that abolishing police would necessitate military intervention — to demonstrate the practical consequences of the policy it opposes.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates counterargument acknowledgment: it concedes that public anger and frustration with police are real and legitimate before arguing that defunding is an inappropriate response. This technique strengthens a persuasive essay by showing the writer understands the opposing view rather than dismissing it outright.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a classic five-paragraph argumentative structure expanded into a short persuasive paper. The introduction states the thesis; the second paragraph analyzes the nature and composition of the defund movement; the third paragraph argues the necessity of police funding for maintaining public order; the fourth paragraph presents the affirmative alternative (reform through training, standards, and community policing); and the conclusion restates the thesis and summarizes the main claims. Works Cited entries follow MLA format.
Introduction: The Defund the Police Debate
Calls to defund the police have been growing since the death of George Floyd in 2020. But what does it actually mean to defund the police, and is it a good idea? Those who advocate for defunding the police do so because they believe that police are the problem and that by removing funding for police, communities will be spared police brutality. What these advocates miss is that police do a great deal to enforce the law. One need only look at what has been going on in cities like Portland and New York City, where defund the police movements have taken hold. With fewer police to enforce the law, looting, vandalism, and random attacks have increased drastically (Sturla et al.). Instead of advocating for defunding, opponents of police brutality should be advocating for better training, higher standards, and improved community relations through the application of community policing.
Who Drives the Defund Movement?
The defund the police movement is not as homogenous in its views as one might think. There is a great deal of anger in some communities because of perceived injustices, racism, and inequality. Much of that anger has no outlet, so it tends toward whatever organizing principle is at hand. In the wake of the death of George Floyd, Black Lives Matter and Antifa became very popular organizations among those angry about various issues; these groups were organized and vocal. The anger and frustration of communities was naturally funneled into them. These groups are left-leaning, radical, and often extreme. Rather than seeking common ground between the needs of the community and those looking for an end to abuses, these groups called for radical solutions — such as defunding the police — and what they meant by this was that they wanted to abolish the police entirely, as was seen in the creation of "autonomous zones" in Portland (Arrieta-Kenna).
While the anger in various communities is real, the belief that police need to be abolished does not appropriately reflect the concerns of the broader public. Not everyone who is angry wants to abolish the police (Koziarski and Huey). However, the defund the police movement is loudest because it is voiced and echoed by organizations that are active in these communities. People are frustrated by injustice and the perception that police brutality occurs, but the defund the police movement is more a reflection of the radical aims of Black Lives Matter and Antifa than it is of the needs of whole communities.
Why Police Funding Is Essential to Public Order
Police are needed to maintain law and order in society, and police need funding to do that. Funding allows departments to recruit, hire, and train top-tier candidates so that members of the law enforcement community are high-quality, high-caliber individuals who can be trusted to do the job they were hired to do. Without funding, police cannot do their jobs effectively, which means communities cannot address the most basic need of ensuring that law and order is maintained.
Who is going to perform that function if not the police? Local organizers are unable to do so because they lack the knowledge, skills, tools, and legal authority. Without local police, the only logical alternative for enforcing law and order would be to have federal or state troops enter the picture — meaning an occupying army at the state level, or a military-police state. That is certainly not the outcome most communities want; however, if the situation in places like Portland continues to worsen, it may become necessary. If police are not able to do their jobs because of the protests and actions of radical organizations, states will have no choice but to turn to a military solution to restore local order. By calling for the defunding or abolishment of police, people are effectively calling for military intervention.
A military-police state may be able to restore order in the short term, but it does not address the underlying problems and needs of the community in the long term. The frustration people feel is real and must be understood and appreciated — but within an appropriate context that also acknowledges the community's need to feel safe, to live according to the rights afforded by the Constitution, and to be free from fear of harm. Therefore, clamoring for the abolishment of the police — only to have the military intervene when order breaks down — is no more of a viable solution than defunding the police to address issues of inequality, racism, injustice, or other abuses.
Conclusion
Defunding the police is not a viable solution to the problems that communities face when it comes to law enforcement today. Police are needed to protect and serve the community by enforcing law and order. When police are not enabled to do that, communities can devolve into disorder, chaos, and violence — which will then lead to a military-police state that does not address the underlying issues. Police need funding so that they can recruit, hire, and train the most qualified individuals who have the necessary character to achieve and maintain higher standards in law enforcement. They also need to be willing to engage in community policing so that they can bridge the gap between law enforcement and communities, facilitate the development of trust on both sides, and create a better environment for all.
Works Cited
Arrieta-Kenna, Ruairi. "The Deep Roots — and New Offshoots — of 'Abolish the Police'." Politico, 2020. Accessed 30 Apr. 2021.
Koziarski, Jacek, and Laura Huey. "#Defund or #Re-Fund? Re-examining Bayley's Blueprint for Police Reform." International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (2021): 1–16.
Sturla, Anna, et al. "Attacks against People of Asian Descent are on the Rise in NYC. The City is Pushing to Combat It." CNN, 2021. Accessed 30 Apr. 2021.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.