What do you think?
Rate this book
Defund: Black Lives, Policing, and Safety for All
A fiercely argued, deeply informed examination of why defunding the police is the only way to support a model of security and protection that increases public safety overall
Time and again history has watched as police respond to minor calls with escalation, wrongful arrests, and even murder. Reform programs are often poorly implemented and their impacts short-lived. Calls to "defund the police" have rung out across the nation, yet the actual meaning of the phrase remains unclear to many. In Defund longtime activist and founder of Black Lives Matter Canada Sandy Hudson explains what it means to "defund the police," and why it matters, by exploring today's criminal landscape and the patterns and structures that result in safer, well-resourced communities.
Hudson explores the origins of commonly held ideas about police and safety to show how police-related social policies are based more on a sensationalized idea of safety than on outcomes and data. Through interviews and sociological research, she demonstrates, for instance, that law enforcement solve only a small number of the crimes, and even the process of assigning cases depends more on optics than large-scale crime reduction. Conversely, safe neighborhoods, rather than featuring an increased police presence, are rich in resources and social programs.
After laying out the history and data behind our broken policing system, Hudson paves a clear path forward by exploring how communities can save both money and lives by investing in themselves rather than in policing. She shows how simple changes to educational resources, community centers, and civic engagement can not only make communities safer but also better able to provide for citizens in countless ways. Clear-eyed and hopeful yet pragmatic, Defund is the key to understanding why a future without police is not only possible but necessary.
Time and again history has watched as police respond to minor calls with escalation, wrongful arrests, and even murder. Reform programs are often poorly implemented and their impacts short-lived. Calls to "defund the police" have rung out across the nation, yet the actual meaning of the phrase remains unclear to many. In Defund longtime activist and founder of Black Lives Matter Canada Sandy Hudson explains what it means to "defund the police," and why it matters, by exploring today's criminal landscape and the patterns and structures that result in safer, well-resourced communities.
Hudson explores the origins of commonly held ideas about police and safety to show how police-related social policies are based more on a sensationalized idea of safety than on outcomes and data. Through interviews and sociological research, she demonstrates, for instance, that law enforcement solve only a small number of the crimes, and even the process of assigning cases depends more on optics than large-scale crime reduction. Conversely, safe neighborhoods, rather than featuring an increased police presence, are rich in resources and social programs.
After laying out the history and data behind our broken policing system, Hudson paves a clear path forward by exploring how communities can save both money and lives by investing in themselves rather than in policing. She shows how simple changes to educational resources, community centers, and civic engagement can not only make communities safer but also better able to provide for citizens in countless ways. Clear-eyed and hopeful yet pragmatic, Defund is the key to understanding why a future without police is not only possible but necessary.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published April 1, 2025
17 people are currently reading
2061 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
April 15, 2025
#ad much love for my finished copy @PantheonBooks #partner
& @prhaudio #partner for the ALC
I also want to edit this: This isn’t against police officers. Most are standup people who risk their lives daily. There are pros of having police - ex: intruder broke into an apartment and one sister ran to get help, a cop happened to be patrolling and saw the girl screaming and running. The cop was able to get into the apartment and shoot the intruder. The other sister would have died if it wasn’t for that officer. The intruder had already stabbed the other sister multiple times.
What I am saying is we fund programs that keep us safe. There is absolutely no reason at all why any police station needs military equipment, has that amount of control to take an innocent life. I believe the root issue is in the training and history of the police. At the end of the day, what we are doing now isn’t working. I don’t know what that solution is but this book is thought-provoking!
Defund: Black Lives, Policing, and Safety for All by Sandy Hudson is a well researched and argued book that I read in 24 hours. Hudson uses many examples and statistics to argue why policing in the USA, UK, and Canada isn’t what we think it is. They don’t provide any sort of safety - and in fact, do the opposite.
Oh how smart I felt when Hudson used a quote I had used in my English college paper I wrote about the Black community and them being vilified on the news. Learning this was a strategic move made me feel more than sick. And I’m so glad she used that article as part of her argument. It’s an important part of this history and story.
This book is broken down into different parts that all add to the bigger picture. It’s a fascinating and important read.
As someone who was SA’ed by a Maine State police officer when I was 16 (off duty- of course I didn’t report it, who would I tell his COWORKERS AND FRIENDS?! Told no one but the dude who was my boyfriend at that time) - and had cops in-and-out of my house as a kid - I’ve never had a trusting relationship with the police. For me, they don’t provide a feeling of safety. They produce fear and anxiety for me. I can only imagine what it’s like to be Black in this world when it comes to police. It’s all I’ve experienced but much much worse and frightening. While this book focuses on the Black community, policing affects everyone - just not equally.
When the system was built on racial tones and for the purpose of controlling the poor and Black community it doesn’t matter how much we reform that system. It was designed to work against us. Hudson argues very logically on why we don’t need the police and how they don’t really offer any safety to us. Just think about it - when has any cop kept you safe BEFORE a crime has happened to you? Instead she proposed funding programs that actually do help in stopping crimes before they happen.
One example is domestic violence. What if we funded programs that actually were able to keep men, women, and children safe when leaving an abusive home?
The statistics are eye-opening. We’ve been copagandaed into thinking that what we see on TV is how the world works, but this couldn’t be further from the truth.
It’s so hard to capture the entirety of this book in my review. You just need to read this book. Forget what you think you know and just give it a read.
The book also touches on the court system, which took me back to the argument that if everyone stopped taking pleas the system would collapse. It couldn’t handle the load of cases. Also, when policing & jailing becomes a for-profit business you best believe it isn’t in our best interest anymore. We are the cash cows - with focus on the Black community especially. But this isn’t a book about the prison population or the jails. Its main focus is policing.
I recently read a fiction book called The Dream Hotel - it’s not too far off from where we could be. Police are already using some of those tactics to predict who will commit a crime. It’s wild when things we once thought were so far off from our reality become our actual reality. And that should scare you.
& @prhaudio #partner for the ALC
I also want to edit this: This isn’t against police officers. Most are standup people who risk their lives daily. There are pros of having police - ex: intruder broke into an apartment and one sister ran to get help, a cop happened to be patrolling and saw the girl screaming and running. The cop was able to get into the apartment and shoot the intruder. The other sister would have died if it wasn’t for that officer. The intruder had already stabbed the other sister multiple times.
What I am saying is we fund programs that keep us safe. There is absolutely no reason at all why any police station needs military equipment, has that amount of control to take an innocent life. I believe the root issue is in the training and history of the police. At the end of the day, what we are doing now isn’t working. I don’t know what that solution is but this book is thought-provoking!
Defund: Black Lives, Policing, and Safety for All by Sandy Hudson is a well researched and argued book that I read in 24 hours. Hudson uses many examples and statistics to argue why policing in the USA, UK, and Canada isn’t what we think it is. They don’t provide any sort of safety - and in fact, do the opposite.
Oh how smart I felt when Hudson used a quote I had used in my English college paper I wrote about the Black community and them being vilified on the news. Learning this was a strategic move made me feel more than sick. And I’m so glad she used that article as part of her argument. It’s an important part of this history and story.
This book is broken down into different parts that all add to the bigger picture. It’s a fascinating and important read.
As someone who was SA’ed by a Maine State police officer when I was 16 (off duty- of course I didn’t report it, who would I tell his COWORKERS AND FRIENDS?! Told no one but the dude who was my boyfriend at that time) - and had cops in-and-out of my house as a kid - I’ve never had a trusting relationship with the police. For me, they don’t provide a feeling of safety. They produce fear and anxiety for me. I can only imagine what it’s like to be Black in this world when it comes to police. It’s all I’ve experienced but much much worse and frightening. While this book focuses on the Black community, policing affects everyone - just not equally.
When the system was built on racial tones and for the purpose of controlling the poor and Black community it doesn’t matter how much we reform that system. It was designed to work against us. Hudson argues very logically on why we don’t need the police and how they don’t really offer any safety to us. Just think about it - when has any cop kept you safe BEFORE a crime has happened to you? Instead she proposed funding programs that actually do help in stopping crimes before they happen.
One example is domestic violence. What if we funded programs that actually were able to keep men, women, and children safe when leaving an abusive home?
The statistics are eye-opening. We’ve been copagandaed into thinking that what we see on TV is how the world works, but this couldn’t be further from the truth.
It’s so hard to capture the entirety of this book in my review. You just need to read this book. Forget what you think you know and just give it a read.
The book also touches on the court system, which took me back to the argument that if everyone stopped taking pleas the system would collapse. It couldn’t handle the load of cases. Also, when policing & jailing becomes a for-profit business you best believe it isn’t in our best interest anymore. We are the cash cows - with focus on the Black community especially. But this isn’t a book about the prison population or the jails. Its main focus is policing.
I recently read a fiction book called The Dream Hotel - it’s not too far off from where we could be. Police are already using some of those tactics to predict who will commit a crime. It’s wild when things we once thought were so far off from our reality become our actual reality. And that should scare you.
April 28, 2025
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 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" 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" 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
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
Final Assessment: Bold Vision with Implementation Gaps
"Defund" 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" 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.
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 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" 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" 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
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
Final Assessment: Bold Vision with Implementation Gaps
"Defund" 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" 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.
December 24, 2025
I expected this book to talk more about the pathways to defunding the police and the alternatives to the police than what was given in this book. I appreciate the author touching on that note at the end of the book. I do agree that it is hard to know what will work instead of police. However, I think that there were great aspects in the book that she could have dug into more.
For example, the community based approaches that have had huge reductions in violence in their respective communities sound incredible. I wish we heard more specifics about that other than that they were lead by members of their community. I think it would have been worth inserting anecdotes as to how the community member identified what would work for their respective communities, how they knew their approach worked, and how they modified their approach when it did not.
My personal opinion is that we need more social workers and community resources, and should take that money from funds we use for police. The author does touch on this resource point but, I would have loved to have read more about that working, even if it was not in the US.
I would highly recommend for those who are wondering WHY we should defund the police. However, I do not think it is particularly groundbreaking for those who are already convinced that we should defund the police.
For example, the community based approaches that have had huge reductions in violence in their respective communities sound incredible. I wish we heard more specifics about that other than that they were lead by members of their community. I think it would have been worth inserting anecdotes as to how the community member identified what would work for their respective communities, how they knew their approach worked, and how they modified their approach when it did not.
My personal opinion is that we need more social workers and community resources, and should take that money from funds we use for police. The author does touch on this resource point but, I would have loved to have read more about that working, even if it was not in the US.
I would highly recommend for those who are wondering WHY we should defund the police. However, I do not think it is particularly groundbreaking for those who are already convinced that we should defund the police.
September 30, 2025
From the perspective of it being a pretty well put together look at the negatives of policing - it does a pretty good job. There are some arguments to be made that the author potentially misconstrues several examples just to be able to use them as she wants for effect, but generally, the examples that she uses are all very good arguments for the harm caused by policing.
My main issue is that a lot of her suggestions for community safety feel incredibly rushed and poorly thought out. At one point she talks about theft of personal property/burglary and her suggestion is simply that everyone should have insurance, and that people can request their money back from insurance companies. While I am aware this is a singular argument, it seems irrational to suggest, when insurance companies are well known to gauge poor people, and set rates higher in areas that are predominantly lived in by poor people. In this example; if poor people have the highest amount of break and enters, and then the highest insurance and can't afford to ensure their homes, they would have absolutely no protection under her new model. And yes, I will accept the argument that the police is not going to stop someone from breaking into your home before it happens, because they are a response, not typically a prevention - but in her argument there is also no prevention, simply changing the institution of policing for insurance companies.
Her permeating argument seems to be that by providing housing, higher wages, etc, there will be less left, which I do agree with. However, she would also not deal with exceptions to her arguments, or talk about cases that strayed from her model of "if everyone has higher wages and housing, crime will no longer exist".
At one point, she talked about how she doesn't agree with incarceration even with sex offenders, and that her professor had said that she would change her mind - and then she retorts that she would not. She did not change her mind, and stuck with her guns that sex offenders are rarely caught/convicted and therefore it is a pointless endeavour by law enforcement. I didn't like the way she grouped conviction in with the police - as that is not their job (outside of gathering evidence), and she wasn't specifically talking about the court. The court's job is conviction, and while the police and the court are obviously connected, these are different jobs, with different structures.
I also didn't like the fact that though she is Canadian, she spent a huge amount of the book talking about American statistics, and different examples of American police brutality. Not completely unrelated of course, and some of them would be fine - but this felt odd considering the extremely low mention of police brutality and institutional violence against Indigenous people in Canada - that felt like it would have been very poignant to bring up in a book about policing and safety, written by a Canadian.
I am not saying that the book is a waste, it just felt more like long twitter thread, purposely written in a way that felt like it was somehow using the serious emotional topic of police brutality to distract the reader from the lack of substantive policy or rational suggestions that came with it.
My main issue is that a lot of her suggestions for community safety feel incredibly rushed and poorly thought out. At one point she talks about theft of personal property/burglary and her suggestion is simply that everyone should have insurance, and that people can request their money back from insurance companies. While I am aware this is a singular argument, it seems irrational to suggest, when insurance companies are well known to gauge poor people, and set rates higher in areas that are predominantly lived in by poor people. In this example; if poor people have the highest amount of break and enters, and then the highest insurance and can't afford to ensure their homes, they would have absolutely no protection under her new model. And yes, I will accept the argument that the police is not going to stop someone from breaking into your home before it happens, because they are a response, not typically a prevention - but in her argument there is also no prevention, simply changing the institution of policing for insurance companies.
Her permeating argument seems to be that by providing housing, higher wages, etc, there will be less left, which I do agree with. However, she would also not deal with exceptions to her arguments, or talk about cases that strayed from her model of "if everyone has higher wages and housing, crime will no longer exist".
At one point, she talked about how she doesn't agree with incarceration even with sex offenders, and that her professor had said that she would change her mind - and then she retorts that she would not. She did not change her mind, and stuck with her guns that sex offenders are rarely caught/convicted and therefore it is a pointless endeavour by law enforcement. I didn't like the way she grouped conviction in with the police - as that is not their job (outside of gathering evidence), and she wasn't specifically talking about the court. The court's job is conviction, and while the police and the court are obviously connected, these are different jobs, with different structures.
I also didn't like the fact that though she is Canadian, she spent a huge amount of the book talking about American statistics, and different examples of American police brutality. Not completely unrelated of course, and some of them would be fine - but this felt odd considering the extremely low mention of police brutality and institutional violence against Indigenous people in Canada - that felt like it would have been very poignant to bring up in a book about policing and safety, written by a Canadian.
I am not saying that the book is a waste, it just felt more like long twitter thread, purposely written in a way that felt like it was somehow using the serious emotional topic of police brutality to distract the reader from the lack of substantive policy or rational suggestions that came with it.
September 11, 2025
Gifted Copy/Book Overall: 4/5
Audiobook/Narration: 4/5
Audiobook/Narration: 4/5
Read
January 31, 2025It looked at first from the cover that the main title is "Defund Black Lives" - a bit different from the intent!
May 28, 2025
Wow wow wow everyone should read this thorough and thoughtful book. I was tabbing every other page. There is no shortage of excellent points and excellent information in here.
Hudson takes on the highly controversial topic of defunding the police, why it is necessary, and what we could and should do instead. She goes through stories and accounts from multiple countries, not just the US, and from all different time periods, highlighting ways that police do not prevent crime, and how the system has consistently failed society. Then, throughout and at the end, Hudson suggests alternatives and how they would change the safety of society, including examples of the alternatives and their success on a small scale (in cities vs in the country).
It was eye-opening, and I was already leaning on the side of abolition and defunding the police. Very well done, and I loved this read.
Thank you to Netgalley and Pantheon for the e-ARC and ARC.
Hudson takes on the highly controversial topic of defunding the police, why it is necessary, and what we could and should do instead. She goes through stories and accounts from multiple countries, not just the US, and from all different time periods, highlighting ways that police do not prevent crime, and how the system has consistently failed society. Then, throughout and at the end, Hudson suggests alternatives and how they would change the safety of society, including examples of the alternatives and their success on a small scale (in cities vs in the country).
It was eye-opening, and I was already leaning on the side of abolition and defunding the police. Very well done, and I loved this read.
Thank you to Netgalley and Pantheon for the e-ARC and ARC.
August 10, 2025
4.75⭐
I have been studying works of abolitionist authors for a long time now and this is a good comprehensive source of information. This could be read by someone who is new to the idea of abolition and wanting to learn more.
Hudson looks at specific cases of police brutality over the recent years and uses them to point out flaws within the police system and how situations could have been handled within a different system.
It's not an overly academic text, but is still informative and well thought out. I highly recommend it.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
I have been studying works of abolitionist authors for a long time now and this is a good comprehensive source of information. This could be read by someone who is new to the idea of abolition and wanting to learn more.
Hudson looks at specific cases of police brutality over the recent years and uses them to point out flaws within the police system and how situations could have been handled within a different system.
It's not an overly academic text, but is still informative and well thought out. I highly recommend it.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
February 21, 2025
Received in a Goodreads giveaway. Highly researched and well written. Ms. Hudson uses all the tools of her years in activism and constructing community to build an argument that even those skeptical would have to consider. I learned a lot about the history of policing that I did not know. The questions posed by the author about what the future would look like give me permission to look forward with curiosity without feeling I have to have all the answers. A mixture of what we need to destroy of the past, do in the present and envision for the future.
September 13, 2025
This book laid out all the common arguments for defunding soooo clearly/in such an understandable way. Recommend for someone first trying to learn about what defunding the police means.
April 29, 2025
a brilliant book about policing and the costs to us all.
November 8, 2025
This took me a long time to read not because it’s long or bad or boring, but because it’s so frustrating and disturbing. It really reads like a well researched solution to one of America’s biggest problems and most ineffectual “safety” apparatus. Change must come, and there is no better time to start than now. The results of the bold action outlined in this book would not only drastically and measurably improve quality of life for marginalized communities, it would improve it for us all. Plus it would free up massive amounts of money to spend on the things that would improve lives overnight. It’s time for a preventative approach instead of the tired old reactive approach. If something isn’t working and hasn’t ever worked, aren’t we crazy not to try something new?
September 20, 2025
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. The quiet breath of that world lingers through Sandy Hudson’s Defund, a book that is less a text to be consumed than an insistence to be wrestled with. The ideas here do not leave you untouched. They press forward. They agitate. They shake loose the comfort of believing we already know what safety is and where it comes from.
Hudson’s central claim is stark: police do not create safety. They never have. They were not built for that. They were built to enforce hierarchy, to control labor, to guard property, to quell dissent, to protect some by punishing others. If safety exists anywhere in our communities, it exists despite policing, not because of it. And if we want to build something better, we must turn our gaze away from reform, away from another round of cameras, bans, and trainings, and toward defunding—toward moving resources away from the violent apparatus of policing and into the kinds of structures that make communities truly safe.
This argument is not brand new, and Hudson is quick to remind us of that. Black thinkers, organizers, and communities have been making it for decades. But Defund arrives in a moment where the cracks are visible to a wider public. The uprisings of 2020 forced millions to see what had been too easy to ignore: the footage of knees on necks, the shattering glass of militarized responses to peaceful protest, the truth that “protect and serve” is not a universal promise but a selective one. What Hudson offers is a guide through that moment—a map of how we got here, what policing really does, why reform has failed, and what alternatives already exist.
One of Hudson’s strengths is her clarity in tracing history’s through-lines. She reminds us that policing in the U.S. and Canada is not a neutral invention but one born from slave patrols, from colonial occupation, from the violent enforcement of segregation and dispossession. To think that these roots can be papered over with diversity initiatives or body-worn cameras is to mistake the rot for the fruit. She is unsparing in showing that the very DNA of policing is animated by racial hierarchy and class control.
This is not simply a matter of the past. At every point in the book, Hudson yokes history to the present. The Cop City project in Atlanta is not just a training facility; it is a continuation of the plantation and the prison farm that occupied the same ground, a material through-line of domination written on the land. The killing of Rayshard Brooks, the repression of the Stop Cop City protesters, the assassination of Tortuguita—all these incidents reveal a continuity, a refusal to let communities breathe freely, a refusal to cede power. Hudson is relentless in showing that the violence is not incidental but structural.
If the history chapters disabuse us of the idea that policing was ever about safety, the chapters on reform disabuse us of the hope that policing can be tamed. Reform is the well-polished wheel on which abolitionist hopes are meant to spin endlessly: body cameras, de-escalation trainings, bans on chokeholds, civilian oversight boards, new policies on use of force. Again and again, Hudson details how these measures are introduced with fanfare, hailed as breakthroughs, only to prove toothless in practice. The bans are circumvented, the cameras malfunction, the oversight bodies lack power, the trainings vanish under the pressure of ingrained culture.
Her point is not that reform is insufficient. It is that reform is misdirected. It presumes policing is fundamentally good but badly managed, when in fact policing is fundamentally violent and functioning as designed. Reform, in Hudson’s telling, is a strategy of delay, a political anesthetic meant to quiet public anger while leaving intact the very institution at issue. To believe in reform is to believe that minor adjustments can cure a disease that is terminal by nature.
The most powerful sections of Defund are not just critiques but reimaginings. Hudson asks us to define safety and security anew. Safety, she suggests, is the condition in which one can be their full self without fear of harm. Security is the sustainability of that condition. Neither is guaranteed by armed patrols. Both are guaranteed, in wealthy communities, by resources: stable housing, access to healthcare, reliable income, schools that nurture rather than punish, spaces for leisure and care.
The logic is deceptively simple: if these conditions make the wealthy safe, why not extend them to everyone? Why must poor communities be managed with armed force rather than with the same preventative supports? Hudson points to examples already at work: Portland Street Response, Albuquerque Community Safety, Toronto’s Community Crisis Service. These are not utopian sketches. They are real programs, staffed by medics, social workers, community health workers, responding to thousands of calls that would otherwise go to police—and resolving them with compassion rather than violence.
Here the book pulses with hope. Hudson insists that we do not need all the answers before we begin. Every institution we take for granted—schools, hospitals, transit systems—was built incrementally, imperfectly, and revised over time. Why should safety be different? To demand a perfect replacement plan before we dismantle policing is a rhetorical trap, a way of preserving the status quo by demanding the impossible. Instead, Hudson calls for experimentation, iteration, and courage.
But Defund is not naïve about backlash. Hudson documents the ferocity with which police unions, politicians, and even courts have sought to crush the defund movement. From the repression of protests in 2020 to the RICO charges against Atlanta activists, she shows that the state is willing to bend law and democracy itself to preserve policing. Her afterword, written in late 2024, underscores the point: the killing of Sonya Massey after she called police for help, the crackdown on student protesters demanding divestment from Israel’s war on Gaza, the election of Donald Trump with promises of more funding and more repression. The lesson is sobering. Not only is reform inadequate, but the defenders of policing are willing to escalate to maintain their power.
Hudson’s prose is accessible yet forceful. She writes with the cadence of someone who has been in the streets and in the archives, who has seen both the statistics and the funerals. She weaves case studies with policy analysis, history with personal reflection. The book does not attempt to hide its commitments; it embraces them. That honesty makes it compelling.
There are moments, however, where the breadth of ambition stretches thin. Some sections, particularly on gender-based violence and the mechanics of large-scale policy transitions, could have used more depth. Critics will seize on these gaps as evidence of naivety, though it seems truer to say they reveal the immensity of the task. One book cannot provide the entire architecture of a new world. It can only insist that the architecture must be built.
In reading across reviews—from professional critics to community readers—there is clear admiration for Hudson’s clarity and courage. Many celebrate her ability to make abolitionist ideas legible without diluting their radicalism. Even skeptics concede her documentation of police abuse is powerful. The disagreements turn on feasibility: can non-police alternatives truly scale? Can violence interruption and housing-first approaches reduce violent crime in the short term? Hudson answers by pointing to existing models and urging us to experiment further. For some, that is persuasive. For others, it is not enough.
What lingers after closing Defund is less a set of policy prescriptions than a shift in imagination. Hudson forces the reader to confront the possibility that what we have long treated as inevitable—armed police as the guarantors of safety—is neither inevitable nor particularly effective. She forces us to notice that every reform cycle has left bodies on the ground. She dares us to believe that we can do better, not by tinkering at the margins but by investing in the resources that actually sustain life.
And so, to read Defund is to be confronted with a choice. Do we cling to the familiarity of reform, knowing it has failed, because we fear the unknown? Or do we take the leap toward prevention, care, and community-based safety, even if the road is not yet fully paved? Hudson is clear about her answer. The question is whether we will make it ours.
Defund is not flawless. At times it is more a manifesto than a manual, more moral insistence than technical blueprint. But that, too, is its strength. It refuses to be hemmed in by the cynicism of incrementalism. It refuses to let us forget the dead. It insists that another world is not only possible but already struggling to be born in programs, movements, and communities across the continent.
As a reader, I found myself moved, provoked, occasionally skeptical, but never indifferent. Hudson has written a book that matters, one that will continue to ripple outward as activists, policymakers, and ordinary people wrestle with the meaning of safety. On balance, I would mark my reception of the book at 83 out of 100.
The number is less important than the truth that animates it: Defund succeeds in shifting the conversation from what police are doing wrong to what we could build right. It may not provide every answer. But it leaves no doubt that the answers must be sought elsewhere than in the institution of policing.
Hudson’s central claim is stark: police do not create safety. They never have. They were not built for that. They were built to enforce hierarchy, to control labor, to guard property, to quell dissent, to protect some by punishing others. If safety exists anywhere in our communities, it exists despite policing, not because of it. And if we want to build something better, we must turn our gaze away from reform, away from another round of cameras, bans, and trainings, and toward defunding—toward moving resources away from the violent apparatus of policing and into the kinds of structures that make communities truly safe.
This argument is not brand new, and Hudson is quick to remind us of that. Black thinkers, organizers, and communities have been making it for decades. But Defund arrives in a moment where the cracks are visible to a wider public. The uprisings of 2020 forced millions to see what had been too easy to ignore: the footage of knees on necks, the shattering glass of militarized responses to peaceful protest, the truth that “protect and serve” is not a universal promise but a selective one. What Hudson offers is a guide through that moment—a map of how we got here, what policing really does, why reform has failed, and what alternatives already exist.
One of Hudson’s strengths is her clarity in tracing history’s through-lines. She reminds us that policing in the U.S. and Canada is not a neutral invention but one born from slave patrols, from colonial occupation, from the violent enforcement of segregation and dispossession. To think that these roots can be papered over with diversity initiatives or body-worn cameras is to mistake the rot for the fruit. She is unsparing in showing that the very DNA of policing is animated by racial hierarchy and class control.
This is not simply a matter of the past. At every point in the book, Hudson yokes history to the present. The Cop City project in Atlanta is not just a training facility; it is a continuation of the plantation and the prison farm that occupied the same ground, a material through-line of domination written on the land. The killing of Rayshard Brooks, the repression of the Stop Cop City protesters, the assassination of Tortuguita—all these incidents reveal a continuity, a refusal to let communities breathe freely, a refusal to cede power. Hudson is relentless in showing that the violence is not incidental but structural.
If the history chapters disabuse us of the idea that policing was ever about safety, the chapters on reform disabuse us of the hope that policing can be tamed. Reform is the well-polished wheel on which abolitionist hopes are meant to spin endlessly: body cameras, de-escalation trainings, bans on chokeholds, civilian oversight boards, new policies on use of force. Again and again, Hudson details how these measures are introduced with fanfare, hailed as breakthroughs, only to prove toothless in practice. The bans are circumvented, the cameras malfunction, the oversight bodies lack power, the trainings vanish under the pressure of ingrained culture.
Her point is not that reform is insufficient. It is that reform is misdirected. It presumes policing is fundamentally good but badly managed, when in fact policing is fundamentally violent and functioning as designed. Reform, in Hudson’s telling, is a strategy of delay, a political anesthetic meant to quiet public anger while leaving intact the very institution at issue. To believe in reform is to believe that minor adjustments can cure a disease that is terminal by nature.
The most powerful sections of Defund are not just critiques but reimaginings. Hudson asks us to define safety and security anew. Safety, she suggests, is the condition in which one can be their full self without fear of harm. Security is the sustainability of that condition. Neither is guaranteed by armed patrols. Both are guaranteed, in wealthy communities, by resources: stable housing, access to healthcare, reliable income, schools that nurture rather than punish, spaces for leisure and care.
The logic is deceptively simple: if these conditions make the wealthy safe, why not extend them to everyone? Why must poor communities be managed with armed force rather than with the same preventative supports? Hudson points to examples already at work: Portland Street Response, Albuquerque Community Safety, Toronto’s Community Crisis Service. These are not utopian sketches. They are real programs, staffed by medics, social workers, community health workers, responding to thousands of calls that would otherwise go to police—and resolving them with compassion rather than violence.
Here the book pulses with hope. Hudson insists that we do not need all the answers before we begin. Every institution we take for granted—schools, hospitals, transit systems—was built incrementally, imperfectly, and revised over time. Why should safety be different? To demand a perfect replacement plan before we dismantle policing is a rhetorical trap, a way of preserving the status quo by demanding the impossible. Instead, Hudson calls for experimentation, iteration, and courage.
But Defund is not naïve about backlash. Hudson documents the ferocity with which police unions, politicians, and even courts have sought to crush the defund movement. From the repression of protests in 2020 to the RICO charges against Atlanta activists, she shows that the state is willing to bend law and democracy itself to preserve policing. Her afterword, written in late 2024, underscores the point: the killing of Sonya Massey after she called police for help, the crackdown on student protesters demanding divestment from Israel’s war on Gaza, the election of Donald Trump with promises of more funding and more repression. The lesson is sobering. Not only is reform inadequate, but the defenders of policing are willing to escalate to maintain their power.
Hudson’s prose is accessible yet forceful. She writes with the cadence of someone who has been in the streets and in the archives, who has seen both the statistics and the funerals. She weaves case studies with policy analysis, history with personal reflection. The book does not attempt to hide its commitments; it embraces them. That honesty makes it compelling.
There are moments, however, where the breadth of ambition stretches thin. Some sections, particularly on gender-based violence and the mechanics of large-scale policy transitions, could have used more depth. Critics will seize on these gaps as evidence of naivety, though it seems truer to say they reveal the immensity of the task. One book cannot provide the entire architecture of a new world. It can only insist that the architecture must be built.
In reading across reviews—from professional critics to community readers—there is clear admiration for Hudson’s clarity and courage. Many celebrate her ability to make abolitionist ideas legible without diluting their radicalism. Even skeptics concede her documentation of police abuse is powerful. The disagreements turn on feasibility: can non-police alternatives truly scale? Can violence interruption and housing-first approaches reduce violent crime in the short term? Hudson answers by pointing to existing models and urging us to experiment further. For some, that is persuasive. For others, it is not enough.
What lingers after closing Defund is less a set of policy prescriptions than a shift in imagination. Hudson forces the reader to confront the possibility that what we have long treated as inevitable—armed police as the guarantors of safety—is neither inevitable nor particularly effective. She forces us to notice that every reform cycle has left bodies on the ground. She dares us to believe that we can do better, not by tinkering at the margins but by investing in the resources that actually sustain life.
And so, to read Defund is to be confronted with a choice. Do we cling to the familiarity of reform, knowing it has failed, because we fear the unknown? Or do we take the leap toward prevention, care, and community-based safety, even if the road is not yet fully paved? Hudson is clear about her answer. The question is whether we will make it ours.
Defund is not flawless. At times it is more a manifesto than a manual, more moral insistence than technical blueprint. But that, too, is its strength. It refuses to be hemmed in by the cynicism of incrementalism. It refuses to let us forget the dead. It insists that another world is not only possible but already struggling to be born in programs, movements, and communities across the continent.
As a reader, I found myself moved, provoked, occasionally skeptical, but never indifferent. Hudson has written a book that matters, one that will continue to ripple outward as activists, policymakers, and ordinary people wrestle with the meaning of safety. On balance, I would mark my reception of the book at 83 out of 100.
The number is less important than the truth that animates it: Defund succeeds in shifting the conversation from what police are doing wrong to what we could build right. It may not provide every answer. But it leaves no doubt that the answers must be sought elsewhere than in the institution of policing.
November 19, 2025
stellar !!
i’m very dedicated to abolitionist ideology from a moral standpoint and i consider it my responsibility to unlearn everything i’ve been taught culturally about policing and its functions — however, i will be the first to admit i do not have all the practical answers. this year i have looked to dedicated abolitionist writers & their work to achieve a fuller understanding of policing & the prison industrial complex and their violence & pitfalls, and of abolition as an approach in theory & practice, including angela davis’ are prisons obsolete, and patrick v. mcharris’ beyond policing.
DEFUND covers all the main important points with a uniquely conversational & tender approach. sandy hudson argues her points clearly, and addresses common counterarguments to her widely considered difficult ideas directly, honestly, and with thought provoking questions. with experience in activism & academia in both the US and canada, she expands the scope of her discussion from the US in a vacuum to include similar (and differing) situations in canada and the UK, confronting colonialism and anti-Indigenous violence directly and specifically in addition to anti-Black racism and subjugation. she refutes many popular contemporary police “reforms” by sharing specific incidents in which said reforms would have done (or did) nothing to change a fatal or violent outcome, shows how frequently reforms & regulations currently in practice are violated, and sheds a light on the unreal extent to which cops are protected by policy & governmental institutions from any real consequences for misconduct & brutality.
while i consider this type of reading & learning to be of utmost importance, it’s always extremely bleak, and in many cases, it’s a lot of horrific statistics and deaths being listed for pages at a time. something i appreciated about this book was that in almost every instance of a mention or description of a particular brutality or murder with a name, the author wrote “may [they] rest in peace,” dedicating a solemn moment of her and the reader’s time to that individual’s memory. it may be kind of a small thing about the writing itself, but it’s a heartfelt, sincere choice nonetheless, and demonstrated to me a unique level of care.
i’m disappointed but not necessarily surprised by some of the other reviews on here from people saying they like some of the author’s points but not others, or finding her inability to produce a singular concrete, all-encompassing replacement solution to policing ready to be implemented nationwide tomorrow to be an indication of faulty reasoning. i encourage fellow white readers, especially those just learning about abolition as a concept for the first time, to — in simplest terms, actually read and comprehend the book before posing tired questions that the book does in fact address — but ultimately & more broadly, to actually listen to and understand marginalized perspectives without judgment or trying to argue with them in your head based on your own experience before even fully hearing them out. the totality of humanity and human experience is bigger than your own experience & understanding, and harm is very real, whether you experience it or not. turn to victims and oppressed communities to see what needs to change, not to the parties actively harming and oppressing, wielding violence to maintain social hierarchies. a lot of people’s unwillingness or inability to understand assertions like this, whether they understand it this way or not, comes from a primal discomfort with the knowledge that they benefit from the way things are and may even actively perpetuate it. that discomfort is GOOD and healthy and right to feel! what’s most important is what you choose to do with it. will you continue to delude yourself into thinking the systemically oppressive status quo is just, or will you realize that a different world is possible and align yourself with calls for REAL change and liberation?
the institutions that make up our world as it currently stands were built. we can build new approaches, & an equitable world for all — if we dare to imagine them, and have the will to make it happen, together. true liberation has not and will not ever come without struggle, hard work, imagination — or love. DEFUND is a call to understand all of this and have the courage to deconstruct what we think we know and build a new, truly safe future, for all.
i’m very dedicated to abolitionist ideology from a moral standpoint and i consider it my responsibility to unlearn everything i’ve been taught culturally about policing and its functions — however, i will be the first to admit i do not have all the practical answers. this year i have looked to dedicated abolitionist writers & their work to achieve a fuller understanding of policing & the prison industrial complex and their violence & pitfalls, and of abolition as an approach in theory & practice, including angela davis’ are prisons obsolete, and patrick v. mcharris’ beyond policing.
DEFUND covers all the main important points with a uniquely conversational & tender approach. sandy hudson argues her points clearly, and addresses common counterarguments to her widely considered difficult ideas directly, honestly, and with thought provoking questions. with experience in activism & academia in both the US and canada, she expands the scope of her discussion from the US in a vacuum to include similar (and differing) situations in canada and the UK, confronting colonialism and anti-Indigenous violence directly and specifically in addition to anti-Black racism and subjugation. she refutes many popular contemporary police “reforms” by sharing specific incidents in which said reforms would have done (or did) nothing to change a fatal or violent outcome, shows how frequently reforms & regulations currently in practice are violated, and sheds a light on the unreal extent to which cops are protected by policy & governmental institutions from any real consequences for misconduct & brutality.
while i consider this type of reading & learning to be of utmost importance, it’s always extremely bleak, and in many cases, it’s a lot of horrific statistics and deaths being listed for pages at a time. something i appreciated about this book was that in almost every instance of a mention or description of a particular brutality or murder with a name, the author wrote “may [they] rest in peace,” dedicating a solemn moment of her and the reader’s time to that individual’s memory. it may be kind of a small thing about the writing itself, but it’s a heartfelt, sincere choice nonetheless, and demonstrated to me a unique level of care.
i’m disappointed but not necessarily surprised by some of the other reviews on here from people saying they like some of the author’s points but not others, or finding her inability to produce a singular concrete, all-encompassing replacement solution to policing ready to be implemented nationwide tomorrow to be an indication of faulty reasoning. i encourage fellow white readers, especially those just learning about abolition as a concept for the first time, to — in simplest terms, actually read and comprehend the book before posing tired questions that the book does in fact address — but ultimately & more broadly, to actually listen to and understand marginalized perspectives without judgment or trying to argue with them in your head based on your own experience before even fully hearing them out. the totality of humanity and human experience is bigger than your own experience & understanding, and harm is very real, whether you experience it or not. turn to victims and oppressed communities to see what needs to change, not to the parties actively harming and oppressing, wielding violence to maintain social hierarchies. a lot of people’s unwillingness or inability to understand assertions like this, whether they understand it this way or not, comes from a primal discomfort with the knowledge that they benefit from the way things are and may even actively perpetuate it. that discomfort is GOOD and healthy and right to feel! what’s most important is what you choose to do with it. will you continue to delude yourself into thinking the systemically oppressive status quo is just, or will you realize that a different world is possible and align yourself with calls for REAL change and liberation?
the institutions that make up our world as it currently stands were built. we can build new approaches, & an equitable world for all — if we dare to imagine them, and have the will to make it happen, together. true liberation has not and will not ever come without struggle, hard work, imagination — or love. DEFUND is a call to understand all of this and have the courage to deconstruct what we think we know and build a new, truly safe future, for all.
January 10, 2025
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, Knopf, Pantheon, Vintage and Anchor / Pantheon, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Defund: Black Lives, Policing And Safety For All, by Sandy Hudson.
This book will be released on April 1, 2025.
This book does an excellent job explaining what defunding the police really means and discussing the existing problems with the police. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in the topic.
I give this book an A.
Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on January 10, 2025.
Thank you, Knopf, Pantheon, Vintage and Anchor / Pantheon, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Defund: Black Lives, Policing And Safety For All, by Sandy Hudson.
This book will be released on April 1, 2025.
This book does an excellent job explaining what defunding the police really means and discussing the existing problems with the police. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in the topic.
I give this book an A.
Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on January 10, 2025.
December 17, 2024
Return? Yes. More bad apples than admitted, yes. But defund is a reaction straight out of Crazy Town. The same type of logic carried through this book looks at evidence that says criminals read fewer books as kids--so if we get kids to read more, then crime will go down; they send everyone free books and are amazed when crime doesn't go down. Speaking from first person experience, BLM are racists of the most evil kind and have benefitted financially, directly, by the threat of harm -- just like a mob operating a protection racket. The upper leadership is known corrupt and many foot soldiers would burn down our own neighborhoods if properly incited, using any narrative driven excuse to justify arson and looting. There is no righteousness to this behavior. As an Elder I am ashamed by it. We as a nation must look in the mirror and righteously reform our own behavior just as we call for the righteous reform of others. This is the only way to a just society, peace, and the end of racism.
July 28, 2025
(Actual rating: 4.5 stars)
This book tackles the thorny topic of policing - it's history, use and what the call to defund really means. Since reading this book, I have looked at examples of policing that I have seen in various places like on the road as I drive and on the news/social media and used the framework that Hudson lays out in this book which asks the question of whether this police truly keeps us safe. In every instance I ave seen, the act - whether normal such as responding to a wreck or abhorrent like actively punching a protestor already on the ground - the unsafe act either already happened or was perpetrated by the officer. Clearly, something needs to change. It's not up to the victimized to propose those changes. Everyone needs to step up, exert some critical thinking and reevaluate the status quo. Only then can we make the systemic change needed. I highly recommend this book.
This book tackles the thorny topic of policing - it's history, use and what the call to defund really means. Since reading this book, I have looked at examples of policing that I have seen in various places like on the road as I drive and on the news/social media and used the framework that Hudson lays out in this book which asks the question of whether this police truly keeps us safe. In every instance I ave seen, the act - whether normal such as responding to a wreck or abhorrent like actively punching a protestor already on the ground - the unsafe act either already happened or was perpetrated by the officer. Clearly, something needs to change. It's not up to the victimized to propose those changes. Everyone needs to step up, exert some critical thinking and reevaluate the status quo. Only then can we make the systemic change needed. I highly recommend this book.
Read
December 16, 2025Thank you to PRH Audio for the ALC free copy of this book.
I highly recommend the audio if that format is accessible to you. It's so incredibly informative, insightful, and a fantastic primer for anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of defunding the police. This book goes over:
what "defunding" means
why we should defund the police
which armed forces are we talking about? just the local police? ICE? The FBI?
who you would call instead when things happen
why we would be better off without them, and how communities of color would be safer without police
The main thing to remember is that police do not prevent any violence or crime, they simply "respond" to it, and they do it poorly. They aren't protecting our communities, they're protecting property.
I strongly encourage anyone who is skeptical of the defunding police / abolitionist movement to read this.
May 15, 2025
An ‘aha’ book for helping the general reader/public understand exactly what it means when we hear cries to “defund” the police.
A fascinating historical and economic accounting of policing and the impact on Black bodies.
I wish she had spent more time sharing the alternatives as she does in the final hour or so of the book. The public - voters, public policy makers, politicians - need to really see what things w/could look like before there is going to be any significant turning of the tide towards achieving the goal.
As a Canadian reader I do wish that there had been more concrete Canadian examples across the board… particularly as it relates to the legal framework and case law that she explores in great detail in the American context.
Thanks to the publisher for providing me access to an audiobook version of this title.
A fascinating historical and economic accounting of policing and the impact on Black bodies.
I wish she had spent more time sharing the alternatives as she does in the final hour or so of the book. The public - voters, public policy makers, politicians - need to really see what things w/could look like before there is going to be any significant turning of the tide towards achieving the goal.
As a Canadian reader I do wish that there had been more concrete Canadian examples across the board… particularly as it relates to the legal framework and case law that she explores in great detail in the American context.
Thanks to the publisher for providing me access to an audiobook version of this title.
May 5, 2025
Should we burn our current system of policing to the ground and start from scratch?
I guess that depends on whether we actually see the inherent worth in all people – Imago Dei, if you will – not just those who look like us and live where we live.
Poisoned trees cannot bear good fruit.
The system we have in place do not work – have NEVER WORKED – was never SUPPOSED to work – for anyone not in power, and if we’re serious about caring for The Lease of These, we need to stop throwing good money (read: military grade weapons) after bad.
SOW EAR PURSES, MF’ers.
This book isn’t necessarily a how-to, but it certainly is a why-to.
Just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.
What else are we going to do? Let fascism reign?
I guess that depends on whether we actually see the inherent worth in all people – Imago Dei, if you will – not just those who look like us and live where we live.
Poisoned trees cannot bear good fruit.
The system we have in place do not work – have NEVER WORKED – was never SUPPOSED to work – for anyone not in power, and if we’re serious about caring for The Lease of These, we need to stop throwing good money (read: military grade weapons) after bad.
SOW EAR PURSES, MF’ers.
This book isn’t necessarily a how-to, but it certainly is a why-to.
Just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.
What else are we going to do? Let fascism reign?
August 1, 2025
This book should be required reading for all.
Sandy Hudson is an excellent and extremely well researched author.
This book not only goes into details and specifics of police brutality and murders but she also gives specific and tangible alternatives to policing.
I can not recommend this book enough
Sandy Hudson is an excellent and extremely well researched author.
This book not only goes into details and specifics of police brutality and murders but she also gives specific and tangible alternatives to policing.
I can not recommend this book enough
November 27, 2024
A much needed analysis into the broken police system and their mistreatment of Black Lives. Additionally, I’m excited to read about solutions that can counteract said police violence as well as clarify what ‘Defund The Police’ means is welcomed and appreciated. Well done Sandy!!!!
May 7, 2025
Brilliantly clear laying out of the facts, and why this absolutely needs to happen. If you have someone in your life who is defund/abolition curious, or if you've struggled to explain defund/abolition to a loved one, this is THE book to hand them.
July 15, 2025
This book by the founder of Black Lives Matter Canada makes a compelling case for defunding and abolishing the police and transforming many of our social institutions in the interest of collective safety.
August 11, 2025
I may not be the audience the author had in mind in writing this, but I so appreciated her excellent, systematic takedown of policing. I will be using the arguments presented in this book often.
June 20, 2025
So good I bought a hard copy after finishing the audiobook.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews