To the editor:

I read your editorial “Don’t ‘defund police,’ but keep them accountable” in the June 12 Enterprise. The writer does a disservice to readers by implying “defund police” means simply zeroing out police budgets, closing stations and laying off police officers. With the possible exception of a tiny fringe minority of protesters, that is simply not the case. Even mainstream politicians, like Gov. Cuomo, light their hair on fire about the term, making it what I call a “boogeyman tag,” a moniker that gets applied to a broad or complex concept in such a way (often misleading or even outright lying) as to scare or anger the public. (Say the word “antifa,” and watch many people’s reactions.)

Many articles have been written and interviews conducted to clearly explain what most informed public officials, activists and academics are talking about when they refer to “defunding.” I encourage readers to educate themselves on the subject. One can read much about urban police departments like Camden, New Jersey, that defunded its department. It still has a fully functional department, but it’s more diverse, better trained (in deescalation, among other things) and has a better relationship with local residents than it did prior to its defunding.

One can also listen to an excellent interview from KPBS in California on the subject: https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/jun/08/what-does-defund-police-mean.

Those resources can be a good start and might even set some people’s minds at ease that most people in favor of reforms aren’t arguing for anarchy to reign.

Small-town departments like those here in the Adirondacks don’t have the overblown and overmilitarized budgets that many urban areas have become used to, but our communities should definitely consider tipping more resources into areas of social service, mental health, nutrition and education that will let police focus on their main job — solving and preventing crime.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Peter Wilson

Lake Clear