Less than four years have passed since George Floyd’s murder ignited a widespread recognition of the injustices within the criminal justice system. However, political leaders across the nation are now reverting to a tough-on-crime stance. In certain instances, both voters and lawmakers are choosing to undo previously implemented reforms.
San Francisco has made a significant decision by voting in favor of two propositions aimed at empowering the police force and making addiction treatment a prerequisite for receiving welfare assistance. Meanwhile, in a similar vein, the D.C. Council members have also taken action by passing a set of public safety measures, one of which involves the reinstatement of “drug-free zones.” These developments highlight the growing recognition of the importance of addressing addiction and ensuring the safety of communities.
On Tuesday, there were votes in Louisiana and Oregon to roll back reforms.
According to Adam Gelb, President and CEO of the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, the recent shift in perspective is quite remarkable, particularly considering the recent nationwide protests decrying the system’s perceived harshness.
According to Gelb, it may seem like we are reverting to highly punitive policies with the 50-year pattern of reform and restrictions. However, he stresses that this is not the complete picture.
“I believe it is highly unlikely that we will revert back to the idea that we can achieve safety solely through arresting and punishing individuals.”
In the latest episode of The Excerpt podcast, we dive into the intriguing topic of crime stats. Surprisingly, despite the data showing improvement in crime rates, it seems that many people still hold the belief that the situation has never been worse. Join us as we explore this perplexing phenomenon and seek to uncover the reasons behind it.
Pendulum swinging across decades led to reforms during last 15 years
According to Gelb, the cycle of restriction and reform has been ongoing since the 1960s. It all began with a wave of reform, followed by a spike in crime during the 1970s. The crack crisis in the 1980s ushered in a “get tough era,” characterized by harsher approaches. As a result, mandatory sentencing, increased prison development, and stricter drug enforcement tactics contributed to the significant growth of the prison population over the next three decades.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which is regarded by The Brennan Center for Justice as one of the most extensive federal bills on crime to date. However, it has a complex legacy due to its role in contributing to mass incarceration.
According to a 2010 congressional report, the United States had the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, with one out of every 31 adults being under the authority of the correctional system by 2007.
Efforts to decrease these populations received support from both sides of the political spectrum, as evidenced by the bipartisan 2018 First Step Act, which aimed to improve criminal justice outcomes and maintain low crime rates. Former President Donald Trump signed this act into law. However, even prior to the enactment of this legislation, the Pew Trust highlighted that over 30 states, including Louisiana, had implemented laws between 2007 and 2017 to reduce prison populations.
Louisiana, Oregon repeal previous reforms, critics say ineffective in public safety
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, in an opinion piece published in the Shreveport Times, a part of the USA TODAY Network, directly attributes the rise in crime to the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act passed in 2017 by the former governor.
According to the Plaquemine Post South, he initiated a Legislative Special Session focused on addressing crime. One of the measures he pushed through was the repeal of a law passed in 2017, which now enables courts to prosecute 17-year-olds as young adults.
Landry recently took action by signing 19 bills into law, which includes the expansion of methods used for execution in cases of the death penalty. Additionally, these new laws aim to reduce opportunities for parole and early release.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Matthew Willard of New Orleans expressed his criticism of certain actions, stating that they would not effectively prevent crime beforehand. The ACLU of Louisiana voiced their opposition to two of the bills, citing their high costs and the unlikelihood of immediate crime reduction.
In Oregon, there have been similar concerns raised regarding the repeal of a portion of Measure 110, a voter-approved measure from 2020 that aimed to decriminalize drug possession. The House in Oregon has passed a bill for this purpose. Critics argue that the state’s criminal justice system is already under immense pressure and that re-criminalizing drug possession would have a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino communities in Oregon. This information was reported by the Statesman Journal.
San Francisco, D.C. expand police powers by ballot and council
According to AP, Proposition E aims to give police more power by reducing paperwork and expanding the use of drones. On the other hand, Proposition F mandates that adult welfare recipients who use drugs must undergo treatment in order to continue receiving benefits.
D.C. Council members recently approved the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, a comprehensive bill that consolidates various public safety measures raised throughout the past year, as reported by The Washington Post. The Act 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 released on Tuesday. She emphasized the city’s zero-tolerance policy towards violence and criminal activities that disrupt the overall sense of safety and hinder the development of vibrant neighborhoods. The bill will now be forwarded to her desk for further review by Congress.
The ACLU had a mixed reaction to the passage of the bills.
‘A ratchet, not a pendulum’
While national crime data is notoriously difficult to follow, figures collected and analyzed from cities across the United States reveal a rise in violent offenses and a decrease in property crime during the pandemic. However, data provided by the CCJ indicates that most types of crime are returning to pre-pandemic levels.
Gelb stated that the target should be the recent lows in 2014, prior to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which further eroded public trust in police.
He also noted that certain recent initiatives may be meant to send a message about crime tolerance rather than effectively reducing crime, and that declining trends may not always make people feel safe.
“I think this is much more about quality than quantity,” added Gelb. “Most individuals aren’t statistics experts, but they know what they see and hear on the street, from friends, and on social media. And the unpredictability and brazenness of some of these episodes point to a culture of lawlessness, a breakdown in behavioral norms and social standards.”
Gelb also claims that, while this wave of tough-on-crime legislation appears to be swinging back to that era, he does not believe it will be as extreme.
“This is ratchet.” It’s not a pendulum,” Gelb explained. “They are not going back to the way things were before. They’re removing the most aggressive edges and dialing things back rather than fully rejecting a balanced approach.”
