Summary of "How Do We Make Policing Less Deadly and Less Racist? | Amanpour and Company"

Policing reform — interview summary

This interview frames policing reform against several high‑profile events and growing public scrutiny. Guests Dr. Philip Atiba Goff and Tracie Keesee (co‑founders of the Center for Policing Equity) discuss why policing can be deadly and racially biased and outline what should change.

Policing in the U.S. is both deadly and racially biased; meaningful reform requires changing recruitment, culture, role definitions, accountability, and investment in community alternatives.

Context — high‑profile cases referenced

Derek Chauvin trial
Breonna Taylor anniversary and settlement
Boulder supermarket shooting (in which an officer died)
January 6 attack on the Capitol
Deaths such as Elijah McClain

Key points and arguments

White supremacy and extremist ties
- A disproportionate number of people charged in recent violent events have military or law‑enforcement ties.
- The guests argue that ties between white supremacist ideologies and policing/military service are longstanding, increasingly visible, and must be addressed through screening and accountability.
Police culture, recruitment, and retention
- Recruiting officers to better match community demographics is insufficient if internal culture remains hostile to Black officers and women of color.
- Screening processes often filter out candidates of color before hiring; many who are hired leave because culture and practice don’t match expectations.
Misaligned role of policing
- Over decades, social‑service responsibilities (mental health, homelessness, substance use) have been shifted onto police.
- This expands policing into non‑criminal matters and often produces harmful interventions when other services are needed.
Reimagining public safety
- The mission of policing should be redefined: shrink the role of armed officers to focus on violent crime (a small share of 9‑1‑1 calls) and invest in community‑based alternatives such as violence interrupters and mental‑health responders.
Backlash to reforms and power dynamics
- Elected reformist prosecutors and other changes provoke backlash because they challenge entrenched racial and political power.
- Racialized panic (for example, rhetoric about “black identity extremists”) is used to defend the status quo.
Inter‑group violence and structural causes
- Attacks on Asian Americans and other intergroup tensions should be seen in context of economic vulnerability, resource scarcity, and historical patterns of racialized exploitation rather than as isolated community conflicts.

Policy priorities highlighted

Invest federal and local resources in community‑based violence reduction programs.
Collect comprehensive data on policing outcomes and disparities (without overly restrictive limits on data collection).
Advance and implement legislative measures tied to George Floyd–era reform efforts.
Build public historical literacy about how wealth and power were accumulated through racialized policies to inform structural remedies.

Concrete reforms recommended

Improve screening and retention practices to reduce extremist entry and improve diversity outcomes.
Change police training and formal job definitions to narrow the scope of armed policing.
Divert nonviolent and social‑service calls to specialized providers (mental‑health professionals, social workers).
Fund community‑led interventions such as violence interrupters and wraparound services.
Collect robust data to track disparities, accountability, and program outcomes.

Contributors / presenters

Christiane Amanpour (Amanpour & Company)
Michelle Martin (interviewer)
Dr. Philip Atiba Goff (co‑founder, Center for Policing Equity; scholar on policing and race)
Tracie Keesee (former Denver police captain; co‑founder, Center for Policing Equity)