Thats what structural change means.
No. To be only slightly tautological... structural change must change the structure of policing. You can't just do the Biden plan and take the racist bits out (because it's not possible), you need to do fundamentally alter the de jure relationship that police have with the community. You need to disarm the police, mandate what percent of the budget can go into new equipment, you need to set up expedient community recall procedures, you need to abolish their unions, you need to repeal qualified immunity, you need to enforce the community residence requirement which is routinely violated, you need body camera laws in every state, you need drug decriminalizations, you need to get rid of ticket quotas and all the other harassment beats, you need to get rid of cash bail, etc. etc. etc. That is what's meant by STRUCTURAL change.
This is why I get so annoyed when mainstream politicians all pay lip service to ending "systemic racism" and then say absolutely nothing consequential. What is it about the SYSTEM - the abstract relationship between sovereign and citizen, all the moving parts and procedures that make up the institution of criminal justice - that is being changed which will make it less racist? These words we use are specific and their specific meanings matter greatly.
If things like passing sensitivity training and non-lethal takedown procedures are as mandatory as fitness checks or firearms training, the kind of person that is in it mostly to exert power over others is going to quit or be flunked out. Realistically you can't disarm the police without disarming the populace. I live in a country where guns are difficult to obtain, and extremely heavily legislated against with severe penalties for ownership, but still have an armed police force. As long as you have the 2nd amendment interpreted as it currently is, you just don't get the luxury of having armed police only deployed surgically, unfortunately.
Qualified immunity should be - as the name implies - qualified, not a blanket shield against all actions.
Yes, body cameras should be mandatory in all districts, and having 'malfunctioning' equipment should be assumed to be negligence, with the corresponding loss of coverage of things like legal protections or insurance. If your body camera mysteriously breaks down right before a suspect gets executed, you should face the consequences of that as a private citizen.
Things like decriminalising drugs or community residency I don't see as being particularly big factors tbh.
Communities in bad areas don't want junkies or drug dealers on their streets, and would rather see police
not from their area than having no police presence at all.
People living in bad neighbourhoods aren't upset there's too many police there. They're upset they only show up when things get really bad. Better community policing doesn't mean only having people who live there policing things; it means having people there enough that they can think of them as part of the community.
Likewise you can have better treatment of drug addicts by pushing for detox programs over imprisonment without making heroin legal or permitting drug dealers free reign.
