Thread by @AlexandraErin

So, the big rebuttal to police abolition is: what are you going to replace the police with?

My answer is: I don't know. I'm not afraid to say that, nor do I see it as an obstacle. I don't think we CAN or SHOULD answer that question now.

Here's why.

In simple terms, we don't know what actual problems the police are needed to solve, or the size and shape of those problems. The self-justifying, self-perpetuating nature of policing as an institution and the mythmaking around police stops us from getting an accurate picture.

If we were to decriminalize sex work, decriminalize homelessness, decriminalize race, decriminalize poverty, and address social causes of violent crime... okay, this is the part where you say "BUT WE'D STILL HAVE VIOLENT OFFENDERS TO DEAL WITH."

Sure, granted. But how many?

We don't know the real shape or extent of the problems we think we need police for, because of the Wars On them and the self-perpetuating cycles that police exacerbate and participate in. We don't know. Any proposal now to solve them outside of police is a shot in the dark.

Now, I meant to say this earlier, but there are people who have been thinking about this a lot longer than I have and they have articulated proposals which you can find with a little Googling. I'm not here to refute the experts. I'm just explaining why I'm fine with no answer.

If we were to abolish the police *by*, primarily, defunding them, shrinking them by taking functions they do (poorly and haphazardly and in n ad hoc manner) and assigning them to other agencies, spending more money on social programs that alleviate inequalities, etc....

...we would have time to see what problems are left behind as the police recede, and we would have time to figure out solutions that work outside the framework of policing. I think that's better. I think any solution we propose now is apt to be speculative and half-baked at best.

And while I call myself an abolitionist, I am willing to concede that we might, in the course of cutting the police down to nothing, discover there is a minimal level of policing we cannot do without, at least until other aspects of our society are changed.

But let's find out.

It doesn't mean I'm not a police abolitionist. "Oh, we can't abolish police because ______ still leads to violence." just gives us more things we have to address along the way.

You can believe that Such Is Human Nature that we can never do without police, and still agree with me that it would be better if we didn't need them, and thus to address those issues in our society that increase the tendency towards violence.

You can agree with the ideal of police abolition while not believing that we'll ever reach that point, but that society will be better for all the progress we make along the way towards it.

And to be clear, I'm not a half-hearted squishy abolitionist who is sitting around going "Ooh, wouldn't it be nice?" I think it can and should happen, not overnight but not "maybe, someday" either.

I just. I don't understand why people aren't *more*... cunning? About things.

I don't want to be "Why are we so hung up on labels" but if you think the police having less power, less influence, less military-style equipment and tactics, less tendency to show up and shoot someone when people call for medical help... why fight abolition efforts?

Because police abolition will take us on a journey where there will be less of all of that stuff, and if you're sure that true and total abolition is an impossible pipe dream, then you get everything you want by backing it and just letting reality take its course.

And a lot of people are on board with disbanding existing police departments and then re-incorporating things that are very much like them, which abolitionists will tell you is not the same thing as true abolition, but which reformers say is more practical and possible.

If that's you, if you're fine with dismantling the police as long as they can then be re-mantled in an ideally better form... a bunch of people calling for abolition with no clear plan for what happens next or no such plan that makes sense to most people, that's your dream.

Join with us, let us do the dirty work, give your weight to defunding and shutting down police departments, and then when people are like, "LOL, now what?", you're there with your plan: Police But Better.

If you're sure that's what's going to make sense in that moment, why not go for it? Why quibble over names and slogans and hashtags when you could swing for the fences?

I don't think anyone who is pro-reform-but-anti-abolition actually is like morally opposed to abolishing the police. If you didn't think they were necessary of course you wouldn't want them. You just think they are.

And if you're right you're right and then we won't ever be fully rid of police because it just won't work.

And if you're wrong... well, like I said. It's not that you *want* police. So if it turns out they're not necessary? Woohoo, more money for schools.

Anyway. I don't have a plan for what we do if we fully abolish police. I don't plan on making a plan. My plan is: we prune back the police like we would prune overgrown invasive vegetation that has taken over a landscape.

Can't make plans for the land until we can see it clearly

And if you think that's irresponsible, despite my reasoning... well, you've got a plan. Police But Better. Police 2.0. Police: The Director's Cut. I don't have a plan. As far as you're concerned, abolitionists in general don't have a plan.

So, you'd probably win, right?

I'm not trying to trick anybody here. My big idea is that if I'm right, as we scale back policing, people who are sure we need something substantially like the police force will see that oh, no, we don't need police for this thing, and turns out we don't need them for that thing.

If I'm wrong, you win. You've got a plan and I don't object to dealing with problems as is necessary to deal with them. No trickery needed.

If reformers work with abolitionists on specifically passing reforms that scale back policing, then we don't have to argue. We don't have to win a bunch of people over. We can simply win, and figure out who is right as we do so.