In her debut book “Defund,” Black Lives Matter Canada co-founder Sandy Hudson delivers a passionate, thoroughly researched argument for police abolition that challenges readers to question fundamental assumptions about public safety. Drawing from her extensive experience as an activist, legal scholar, and community organizer, Hudson methodically dismantles the institution of policing while proposing alternative frameworks for community wellbeing.
The Core Argument: Beyond Reform to Abolition
Hudson wastes no time establishing her central thesis: reforms cannot fix an institution fundamentally designed for social control, racial subjugation, and class enforcement. Through meticulous historical analysis and contemporary examples, she argues that police have consistently served to maintain power structures rather than protect communities.
The book’s strength lies in Hudson’s ability to ground theoretical arguments in concrete examples. When discussing police origins, she traces modern policing to three distinct historical functions:
- The colonial enforcement apparatus exemplified by Ireland’s Dublin Police (1786)
- Slave patrols in the American South used to control Black populations
- Protection of wealthy business interests against worker organizing
These historical roots, Hudson argues, aren’t merely interesting background but continue to shape modern policing practices. She convincingly demonstrates how contemporary police actions at protests like Standing Rock and against homeless populations reflect these original functions.
Exposing Myths Through Data and Storytelling
One of the book’s most effective aspects is Hudson’s dual approach to exposing policing myths—combining statistical analysis with powerful personal narratives. She cites studies showing police in the United States spend less than 5% of their time addressing violent crime, with similar figures in the UK where 80% of police time goes to non-criminal matters.
Hudson is particularly effective when highlighting how media representations distort public understanding:
“Crime accounts for 25 percent of the content in newspapers and 20 percent on television, but it is not presented in a manner that reflects how frequently it occurs. As we’ve learned, violent crime is uncommon, but murders are far more likely to receive coverage than, for example, property crime, which occurs far more frequently.”
While these statistics are compelling, Hudson’s most persuasive moments come through storytelling. Her recounting of personal experiences, like her intervention when police confronted a grieving Black man in Toronto, or her analysis of high-profile cases like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, humanize the abstract harms of policing.
Weaknesses in Addressing Practical Challenges
Despite Sandy Hudson’s strong foundational arguments, “Defund” sometimes struggles with practical implementation questions. Her dismissal of the concern “what would replace policing?” as a rhetorical distraction underestimates legitimate anxieties many readers might have about transitioning from current systems.
While Hudson does point to promising alternatives like Portland’s Street Response program and violence interruption initiatives, these examples receive less thorough treatment than her critique of existing systems. The book could benefit from more extensive exploration of these alternatives, including their limitations and implementation challenges.
Additionally, Hudson sometimes overreaches in attributing all problematic aspects of policing to original design rather than acknowledging how institutions evolve over time. This occasionally undermines her otherwise nuanced analysis.
Thought-Provoking Reframing of Safety
Where “Defund” by Sandy Hudson excels is in challenging readers to reconceptualize safety itself. Hudson expertly shifts the conversation from punishment to prevention:
“If we want to remove these endemic threats to safety, we have to start where they begin and focus on prevention. Could we eliminate the incentive for theft by ensuring economic stability rather than the failed option of deterrence through punishment?”
She persuasively argues that resources currently funneled to policing could be redirected to address root causes of harm: housing insecurity, mental health crises, substance use disorders, and economic inequality.
The examination of how police budgets absorb funds that could provide actual safety measures is particularly compelling. Hudson cites examples like communities spending three times more on policing homelessness than it would cost to provide housing, demonstrating the fiscal irrationality of current approaches.
Stylistic Strengths and Weaknesses
Hudson’s writing is accessible without oversimplifying complex ideas. She deftly weaves together academic research, historical context, and personal experience, making “Defund” readable for audiences new to abolition concepts while still engaging for those familiar with the discourse.
Her persuasive technique of anticipating and addressing counterarguments strengthens the book’s credibility, particularly when discussing concerns about violent crime. However, in some sections, Hudson’s activist background leads to rhetorical flourishes that may alienate skeptical readers who might otherwise be persuaded by her evidence-based arguments.
The book could also benefit from more international comparative analysis. While Hudson draws examples from the U.S., Canada, and occasionally the U.K., deeper exploration of different approaches to public safety globally would strengthen her case for alternatives.
Key Insights for Various Audiences
What makes “Defund” by Sandy Hudson valuable for different readers:
For policy makers:
- Detailed analysis of how police budgets could be reallocated
- Evidence of successful non-police emergency response programs
- Data on the ineffectiveness of current approaches to public safety
For community members:
- Tools to question dominant narratives about policing
- Framework for understanding systemic issues beyond “bad apples”
- Vision for community-centered approaches to safety
And For researchers and academics:
- Rich bibliography of sources on policing history and alternatives
- Thorough examination of the “copaganda” phenomenon
- Analysis connecting historical police functions to contemporary practices
Comparative Context in Abolitionist Literature
Hudson’s work enters a growing field of abolitionist literature, including Mariame Kaba and Andrea Ritchie’s “No More Police” and Alex Vitale’s “The End of Policing.” What distinguishes “Defund” is Sandy Hudson’s specific focus on the economic arguments against policing and her Canadian perspective, which provides valuable contrast to U.S.-centered works.
Unlike some abolitionist texts that primarily target already-sympathetic audiences, Hudson attempts to reach those genuinely questioning current systems without prior ideological commitment to abolition. This approach makes “Defund” particularly valuable as an entry point to abolitionist thinking.
Final Assessment: Bold Vision with Implementation Gaps
“Defund” by Sandy Hudson succeeds in providing a thorough, evidence-based critique of modern policing and making a persuasive case that the institution is fundamentally flawed rather than merely in need of reform. Hudson’s careful dismantling of policing myths and exploration of historical continuities provides readers with powerful tools to question assumptions about public safety.
Where the book falls short is in fully developing the practical roadmap from current systems to the alternatives Hudson envisions. While she convincingly argues that change is possible, the transition strategies remain somewhat underdeveloped.
Nevertheless, “Defund” represents an important contribution to public safety discourse, challenging readers to imagine safety beyond punishment and control. Hudson’s blend of scholarly rigor and activist passion creates a compelling case that communities deserve better than the failed promises of policing.
For readers willing to question foundational assumptions about safety and security, “Defund” by Sandy Hudson offers both intellectual challenge and practical hope—a vision of communities that protect their members not through force and fear, but through care, resources, and genuine accountability.
Strengths:
- Thorough historical analysis
- Effective blend of data and storytelling
- Accessible writing on complex topics
- Strong critique of existing systems
Weaknesses:
- Underdeveloped implementation strategies
- Occasionally dismissive of practical concerns
- Could benefit from more international comparisons
- Sometimes overreaches in historical attributions
“Defund” by Sandy Hudson is essential reading for anyone concerned with public safety, criminal justice reform, or addressing systemic racism—regardless of whether readers ultimately embrace Hudson’s abolitionist vision, her arguments demand serious consideration.
