Why is reform widely debated?

UNPACKING REFORM

Reform is a widely debated position in the activism world. There are two different positions most reformists take. The first is that incremental reform is the only way we can improve the police system. (This is typically where the push back occurs. More about that later.)

The second is that as long as the police are here we have the responsibility to make sure they don't harm people. There are two types of reform that are typically aligned with these perspectives: “reformist” reform and “radical” reform. Let’s dive into both.

1. Reformist Reform

Usually the choice of moderate and conservative groups, these reforms typically require investing more money in policing and research shows they are rarely successful. Although body cameras were aggressively pushed as a solution to police violence, a 2019 review of 70 studies found that body cameras “have not had statistically significant effects on most measures” of officer behavior.

Trainings and police commissions are other examples of reforms that haven’t been considered effective and only hold the promise of incremental change.

The hard truth

Before the murder of George Floyd, Minneapolis police had undergone extensive anti-bias training, received body cameras, and engaged in other reformist options for reducing police violence, but where the results?

Reform didn’t save George Floyd’s life.

Lack of accountability

Video footage from body cameras and other sources weren’t enough to get justice for Philando Castile, Samuel DuBose, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, and many, many others. In fact, the new body camera laws have resulted in frequent examples of police officers turning off their devices before an incident. Police departments withholding footage that could incriminate officers from the public is another strategy we've seen recently.

2. Radical Reform

Some organizations are redefining reform and see it as a realistic and immediate step that can lead to larger changes like abolishing police. This approach focuses on ensuring individuals can take immediate action and demand accountability while more long term strategies are being developed. These reforms don’t require investing more money into policing and mainly focus on pursuing more police accountability. They also target policy changes that blend radical reform with other positions like defunding. Here are some examples:

• Making changes to union contracts
• Banning chokeholds
• Creating a national database for tracking police misconduct
• Prohibiting ‘no knock’ warrants
• Limiting the transfer of military hardware to police forces
• Pursuing legal damages when police violate civil rights by ending ‘qualified immunity’ which protects law officers from facing prosecution

Four ways to determine if a proposal is a reformist or radical reform

If you are trying to tell the difference between both strategies here are some questions by In These Times to consider when reviewing a proposal. Does the solution proposed:

• Reduce fund­ing to police?
• Challenge the notion that police increase safety?
• Reduce the tools, tac­tics, or tech­nol­o­gy that the police have at their disposal?
• Lean towards breaking down the systems of policing?

If the answer is yes to all of these questions then it can be considered radical reform.