Ethic Essay Police Defund
Ethic Essay Police Defund
In recent times, protests are being held in many parts of the world because of the police’s use of
brutal force and discrimination in law enforcement. Several incidents of brutality towards black
and indigenous residents in Canada are clear examples of systematic racism in the police force of
the country, with Toronto being the hotspot. Therefore, many abolitionists argue that it would be
better to defund the police, reallocating funds to other issues that are the root of crimes. This is
hoped to resolve not only criminal activities caused by poverty and mental illness, but also the
misused power of the police. On the contrary, there is a common belief that more funding should
be invested in providing the police with special skills to avoid racism because despite their flaws,
they still play a pivotal role in maintaining public safety. As the Ethics Advisor to the Toronto
Mayor, from a utilitarian perspective, I would suggest that more budgets should be given to the
police. This is because the police force can bring more benefits for the common than other
departments and the downsides can be improved over time. This essay will analyze the grounds
As a utilitarian, I believe that general happiness is the sole criteria in judging whether an action is
right or wrong. This is particularly true for law and policy makers as they should always take the
public welfare into consideration. Utilitarianism is a philosophical view that matters should be
judged based on their consequences rather than the process. This makes utilitarianism a branch
of consequentialism. It rests on the idea that an action is morally right if it can maximize the
overall outcome: more benefits and fewer drawbacks. “An act is right, and so ought to be
performed, if it secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (taking into
consideration the agent’s own happiness along with everyone else’s).” (Chaparian, 2020, Lesson
Ho Phuong Thao – N01443578
7). However, it is still unclear whether we should consider the benefits for individuals or for
groups, for humans only or for all beings on Earth. Another uncertainty is that we cannot be sure
what outcomes can actually occur but can only base on predictions which can vary between each
person. In the end, this is also considered a pursuit of happiness as happiness is the sole pivotal
factor of whethere something is ultimately good or bad. If a law is enacted without accounting
the good for the whole population but only to a group of the privileged, then it would become the
onset of chaos, thereby unethical. Therefore, by comparing the number of merits with the
number of possible negative impacts of an act, the governments can make sure that it is doing its
best to do good to the country. This is why an advisor to the mayor should take the view of a
utilitarian.
For example, if police were allowed to fire without bearing any consequences, it would be easier
for them to do their job, catching dangerous criminals. However, this law would make the
majority of the citizens feel unsecured because they would fear the police, not knowing when
they could get shot for any reason. This would result in an over-policed society where the
general public would live in constant fear even though there might be no more ciminals. As a
utilitarian, the advisor to the mayor can foresee such scenarios so that he/she can evaluate the
However, the effects of a policy can only be predicted in a limited foreseeable future while its
ripple impacts may occur in the long run. Sometimes, what the lawmakers anticipate to be
beneficial will turn out to be disastrous years later, which makes it no longer ethical. For
instance, if the fund for police were channeled to universal basic income, how could we be sure
whether it would improve the citizens’ living conditions or it would lead to an irrivocable
economic recession because workers would not go to work anymore? How could we be sure
Ho Phuong Thao – N01443578
whether people who work in the sectors that might receive funding from the police are not racist?
In this case, the effects of defunding the police must be analyze thoroughly in short term as well
as long term.
Resource allocation has always been a topic of controversy since the dawn of time. This section
will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of defunding the police force to shift the focus to
other priorities. It is no denying that people of color in Canada are subject to suppression by a
considerable portion of police officers, leading to rallies all over the country. Racism by police is
such an imperative real issue in western countries that people are demanding the government to
defund this force. It is believed that by channeling the budget for law enforcement to social
services, all the problems that require police will be mitigated. For example, because most
people commit petty crimes out of institution, social security programs, such as food stamps or
universal basic income, should receive more funding to provide for those people so that they will
not steal for food. According to Sensus 2016, the average poverty rate for black children is
surprisingly high in Canada, with 17% (Sarangi, 2020, p. 3). From a police perspective, there is a
high chance that they are more likely to offend than other children, which is a threat to law-
abiding citizens. Therefore, children in black communities are over policed. If those children
could receive proper care and education just like their white counterparts, there would be no
reason for them to break the law, thereby not being supervised by the police. While this is true to
some extent, I still think that racism has become a systemic problem not only occuring in the law
enforcement but in every corner of society at the core. Even if the police is defunded and the
black communities’ crime rate is low, the colored are still going to be discriminated and
assaulted by their coworkers, neighbors, employers or friends. Black children are bullied by the
Ho Phuong Thao – N01443578
schoolmates. Non white applicants are accepted not for their ability but only because of the
company’s “cultural diversity” image. Without the hand of law enforcement, who can protect
them from those behaviors? Another reason why closing the wealth gap to eliminate crimes is a
naive notion is that the most serious crimes are not caused by poverty. Mafia, drug smugglers
and cartels, and poachers are all millionnaires and they will not stop breaking the laws due to
greed. Murders and harrassments can be committed by anyone regardless of wealth or status.
What social services can eradicate greed, jealousy, or anger? At this point, if social services such
as mental health experts receive extra budgets, what can guarantee their efficiency? How can we
know whether there will be an increase in their usefulness or there will be diminishing returns?
On the other hand, strengthening the police force has its own indispensable benefits and there are
some feasible solutions to tackle the systemic racism in this department to answer to the
objections of this idea. First and foremost, the dominant merit of investing more in the police is
that they can receive more training for their public behaviors. In other words, thanks to those
courses, they can know how to treat people from different cultures equally and how not to make
them feel oppressed. For example, in China or Korea, police officers are under the same training
procedure of hospitality and catering service, which could result in helpful, friendly and smiley
officers. They can even have the skills to consult any mental or physical breakdown on sites
before calling for support from doctors. Even if these trainings cannot change the officers’
mindet on racism towards the black, they can still carry out their job professionally without
concentration on one particular race because they could learn that it will ruin their image and
career. Furthermore, cameras can be mounted to every policeman’s shoulder or head to record
their actions, preventing them from making a decision out of personal urges like hatred or
Ho Phuong Thao – N01443578
discrimination. An AI system can be integrated inside the camera to analyse the situation and
report to the headquarter. This can act as a deterrent for officers who abuse their power.
Therefore, law abididng citizens of all races can enjoy the protection of the police. Another
reason that we need to equip police with more arms and skills is that crime operations are more
and more complex, putting the whole society at risk. Human trafficking, organ harvesting, or
drug smuggling have never been this intensive. Therefore, a huge budget must be allocated to
CCTVs, drones and “eagle-eye” sattelites to detect those activities while the police should be
better armed to protect themselves. What we actually need to do is invest in more educational
initiatives and supervising programs to change the whole system’s perspective on the black and
In conclusion, although the police’ image has become rotten in the eye of the public due to their
aggressiveness, overpower and racism, I sill strongly disapprove the idea of defunding them.
While I think that other social services do need more fundings to help improve our living
standards, thus mitigating a part of our social problems, I believe this solely cannot change the
current situation of crimes and discrimination. Only by enhancing the police, can we uphold the
law and maintain public safety for everyone from all walks of life.
Ho Phuong Thao – N01443578
Reference list:
releases/exceptionally-high-child-poverty-rates-in-black-indigenous-communities-
indicator-of-systemic-violence-in-canada-845089842.html