Less than four years have passed since George Floyd’s murder, which triggered a widespread realization of the injustices within the criminal justice system. However, it is disheartening to witness a growing number of political leaders reverting to a tough-on-crime stance. In certain instances, both voters and lawmakers are choosing to undo the reforms that were enacted years ago.
San Francisco has made a decision to show its support for two propositions that aim to strengthen the authority of the police and make addiction treatment a requirement for receiving welfare assistance. In a similar vein, the members of the D.C. Council have also taken significant steps towards public safety by approving a set of measures, which includes the reintroduction of “drug-free zones.”
On Tuesday, there were votes in Louisiana and Oregon to roll back reforms that had been implemented.
“It is truly astonishing how quickly opinions have shifted, especially considering the recent nationwide protests that condemned the system for its excessive severity,” remarks Adam Gelb, President and CEO of the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice.
Gelb highlighted that the 50-year pattern of reform and restrictions may give the impression that we are reverting to highly punitive policies. However, he emphasized that this does not provide a complete perspective.
“I believe it is highly unlikely that we will completely revert to the concept that our safety can be achieved solely through the arrest and punishment of individuals.”
“The Excerpt podcast: Unveiling the truth behind crime statistics and the paradoxical perception of a worsening situation”
Pendulum swinging across decades led to reforms during last 15 years
According to Gelb, the cycle of restriction and reform can be traced back to the 1960s, when a period of reform was followed by a rise in crime during the 1970s. The crack crisis in the 1980s marked the beginning of a “get tough era,” characterized by stricter sentencing policies and increased prison construction. As a result, the prison population has continued to grow significantly over the past three decades.
During this period, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which is regarded by The Brennan Center for Justice as one of the most comprehensive federal bills on crime ever enacted. However, this legislation has a “complicated” legacy due to its contributions to mass incarceration.
According to a 2010 congressional report, the United States had the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world by 2007, with one in every 31 adults under the authority of the correctional system.
Efforts to reduce those populations received bipartisan support, as evidenced by the 2018 First Step Act, signed into law by former President Donald Trump. Even prior to that, the Pew Trust reported that over 30 states had enacted laws between 2007 and 2017 to decrease prison populations, including Louisiana.
Louisiana, Oregon repeal previous reforms, critics say ineffective in public safety
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has placed explicit blame on the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act, signed by a former governor in 2017, for the surge in “rampant crime.” In an opinion piece featured in the Shreveport Times, a part of the USA TODAY Network, Governor Landry highlights the negative impact of this legislation on the state’s crime rates.
In a move to address the issue of crime, he initiated a Legislative Special Session, as reported by the Plaquemine Post South. One of the measures he pushed through involved repealing a law from 2017, which now enables courts to prosecute 17-year-olds as young adults.
Landry recently signed a total of 19 bills into law, which encompass a range of significant measures. These include widening the scope of execution methods utilized in cases involving the death penalty, as well as implementing measures that serve to curtail opportunities for parole and early release.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Matthew Willard from New Orleans expressed his criticism towards certain actions, stating that they would not effectively prevent crime in advance. The ACLU of Louisiana also voiced their opposition to two of the bills, citing their high costs and doubted effectiveness in reducing crime immediately.
In Oregon, similar concerns have been raised regarding the repeal of part of Measure 110, a 2020 voter-approved measure aimed at decriminalizing drug possession. The House has passed a bill to repeal this measure, leading to criticism from opponents who argue that the state’s criminal justice system is already burdened and that the proposed recriminalization would disproportionately impact Black and Latino Oregonians, as reported by the Statesman Journal.
According to Tera Hurst, executive director of the Health Justice Recovery Alliance, she believes that the current approach to crime rates would be insufficient in addressing the issue effectively.
San Francisco, D.C. expand police powers by ballot and council
San Francisco voters expressed strong support for two measures proposed by Democratic Mayor London Breed during the Super Tuesday election. According to the Associated Press, Mayor Breed, who is running for reelection in November, has faced criticism from her opponents for what they perceive as her inability to effectively address drug crimes, vandalism, and theft.
According to AP, Proposition E aims to give police more authority by reducing paperwork and expanding the use of drones. On the other hand, Proposition F states that adult welfare recipients who use drugs must undergo treatment in order to continue receiving benefits.
D.C. Council members have recently approved the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, a comprehensive bill that consolidates various public safety measures brought up in the past year, as reported by The Washington Post. The bill encompasses the following provisions:
-
- Judges could more easily order some to be detained while awaiting trial for violent offenses
- The definition of carjacking expanded to encompass more cases for prosecution
- “Organized retail theft” considered a new felony
- Establishing temporary “Drug-free zones”, a 1990s-era tactic revived to address drug-related loitering
Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed her support for the legislation in a statement on Tuesday, stating that they will not tolerate violence or criminal activity that disrupts the safety and prosperity of their neighborhoods. The bill will now be sent to her desk for further review before going through the congressional process.
The ACLU had a mixed reaction to the passage of the bills.
According to a statement by Melissa Wasser, the Policy Counsel of ACLU-D.C., the revised Secure DC Act offers certain limited safeguards, but it does not adequately protect us from the potential abuse of power.
‘A ratchet, not a pendulum’
National crime rate data is often challenging to track accurately. However, statistics gathered from various cities across the United States indicate a surge in violent crimes while property crimes have seen a decline during the pandemic. The data, which has been analyzed by the CCJ, also suggests that most categories of crime are gradually returning to levels observed before the pandemic.
According to Gelb, the aim should be to reach the lows witnessed in 2014, prior to the tragic incident involving Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It was this incident that caused a significant deterioration in public confidence towards law enforcement.
He also recognized that certain recent policies may be aimed at conveying a message about the level of tolerance towards crime rather than directly preventing it. He pointed out that although crime rates may be declining, it does not necessarily guarantee a sense of safety among the population.
Gelb emphasized that the focus should be on quality rather than quantity. He pointed out that while not everyone may fully understand the statistics, people can observe and hear about incidents happening in their community through word of mouth, friends, and social media. The random and audacious nature of these incidents indicates a larger issue of lawlessness, a decline in behavioral norms, and social standards.
According to Gelb, while these tough-on-crime laws may give the impression that we are reverting back to that era, he believes that the pendulum will not swing to such an extreme extent.
According to Gelb, the current situation can be compared to a ratchet rather than a pendulum. Instead of reverting back to the way things were before, there is a gradual reduction of the more extreme aspects, while still maintaining a balanced approach.
