Proloog politsei definantseerimise juurde

Politsei rahastamine on üks nipiga küsimus. Ühelt poolt ei ole suurt vaidlust selle üle, et politseitöö on ühiskonnas oluline, sest puudutab või võib puudutada igaüht. Teisalt jälle ootused politseipraktikatele ja tegelikkuse peegeldus ehk individuaalne tunnetuslik dimensioon. Näiteks on huvitav, et brittide juurest alguse saanud NPM ehk uue avaliku halduse praktikate üks eesmärk oli õhem avalik sektor. Ometi oli just briti politsei see üsna erandlik näide sellest, et vaatamata 1970.-ndate lõpus alguse saanud NPM-ist, politsei eelarve ei vähenenud veel umbes 30 aastat ning viimaks kutsus politseireformi esile politseinike kaugenemine elanikes. Ja siis võib tuua näiteks Rootsi politsei, mille professionaalsusele on parlamendi järelevalvekomisjon eelmise kümnendi algusest teinud hulgaliselt etteheiteid öeldes, et politsei rahastamine ja selle eest saadav kvaliteet ei ole vastavuses.
Aga, jah, USA on ilmselt meile jõudva info tõttu üks arusaadavamaid näiteid viimasest ajast, kus avalikkuses on tõusetunud politsei rahastamise küsimused ning põhjuseks jällegi politseitöö praktikate mittevastavus ootustele. Iseküsimus on see, kas või millised need ootused võiksid olla või missugused on politsei võimalused institutsionaalses keskkonnas.
Siinviidatud essee pakub väärtuslikku informatsiooni politsei definantseerimisest esitades tüpoloogia ja diskursuse.

Kontekstiks:

Unsurprisingly, even as they express discomfort with the term “defund the police,” policymakers are proposing reforms that will, in effect, reduce funding to the police. Yet, because the demand to defund the police has emerged as a political lightning-rod, there is real confusion about how to interpret the significance of such reforms.

Essee eesmärk ja väide:

This Essay seeks to clear the air and thus to facilitate public discourse. It adopts a literal interpretation of defunding to clarify and distinguish four alternative, substantive policy positions that legal reforms related to police funding can validate. It argues that the policy debates between these positions exist on top of the ideological critique launched by grassroots activists, who use the term “defund the police” as a discursive tactic to make visible deeper transformations in government practices that normalize the structural marginalization of black people enforced through criminal law.

Definantseerimisest:

“Defund” is a transitive verb that means “to withdraw funding from” or “to withdraw financial support from.” In the context of U.S. practices, to defund colloquially refers to either a reduction in, or the elimination of, funding.

Diskursiivne käitumine:

Discursively, the social meaning of “defund the police” emerges from “[o]ne of the most contested planks” of the Black Lives Matter movement: the call to “invest/divest.” […] Treating police violence as a symptom makes the racialized nature of structural marginalization visible. So, to the extent that public discourse orients around what to do about policing, it is too narrow in scope. […] The real controversy around defunding the police, then, arises not just from the demand that we address structural marginalization; it arises also from the demand that we suspend the assumed meaning of both concepts to interrogate policies without a preconceived notion about their meaning.

Mõned järeldused:

To defund the police can mean many things. As a substantive policy, it provides a path to abolition for some, and a path to police transformation for others. For still others, it provides a pathway to continue transforming governance by making police more effective or, at least, by saving constrained public resources. […] [The essay] asks that we remember that the place to start in thinking about reforms in this moment is, quite simply, structural marginalization, not policing or defunding.

Eaglin, J. M. (2021). To “Defund” the Police. 73 Stanford Law Review Online 120 (2021).