This is close to saying child rapists rape children behind closed doors so you shouldn't have locks, ignoring that well locked doors benefit everyone who has a house. It's disingenuous.
Recall that there were more than one instance where critical evidence against a wealthy person, required for the prosecution to make a compelling case in court, was obtained by force with a police raid. At least one such instance happened in the US in 2019 and was well-publicized.
Now imagine a real-life security system that is absolutely, one hundred percent immune to unauthorized entry, even if it is attempted as a part of law enforcement raid.
It is possible to identify with the argument that everyone should have access to such an impenetrable lock. However, it’d be really hard to argue that widespread access to it wouldn’t create a radically new situation.
With regards to communication, we already have that impenetrable lock built in. I can say something incriminating to someone else in private, and the only way law enforcement will ever know what is if either party involved in the private conversation agrees to divulge it. Traditionally, the means for law enforcement to address this is to be part of the conversation.
Most real-life analogies to encryption are not good enough. A smart layperson can easily spot issues with the “if crime happens in private, you shouldn't ban privacy” type of argument.
This reasoning leads to export-grade cryptography, a bane of our praactice that nonetheless was an acceptable compromise for many years. It seems that that era of compromise is coming to an end, though.
We'd less need for the police.