Politicians and criminal justice practitioners are good at cooking the books to make it appear their bonehead programs are a huge success
My good friend Jay Wall, a civic minded Houstonian, wanted me to read two articles on criminal justice reform. The first article, “How Not to Respond to the Rising Murder Rate,” was published in the September 26 issue of the New York Times. The article argues against the tough-on-crime concept as a means of reducing the homicide rate. Here is the contention in a nutshell:
Here’s a proven approach that deserves more support: Mr. [David] Kennedy’s National Network for Safe Communities supports local efforts to reduce violence, minimize incarceration, and improve police-community relationships. Civic,community and criminal justice leaders confront criminals with a simple message: “The killing must end now. If you let us, we will help you. If you make us, we will stop you.” Those willing to turn away from violence are offered services and support, while those who will not are confronted with coordinated law enforcement action. A systematic review found that this strategy reduced crime and violence in nine out of 10 studies, with homicide reductions of 34 percent to 63 percent.
Wow! They reduced the homicide rates by 34-63 percent. That’s almost unbelievable. But wait a minute, not so fast! If we take another look at those numbers we will see it’s just smoke-and-mirrors. Let’s use some simple math. Some communities in America have low crime rates with very few homicides. If a community had six murders one year and only four the next year, the homicide rate has been reduced by 33 percent. Likewise, if there were six murders one year and only two the next, the homicide rate has been reduced by 66 percent. Get it?
But such reductions are not happening in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans and my hometown of Houston. If the reformers were to approach the gangbangers in L.A. or Chicago with “The killing must end now. If you let us, we will help you. If you make us, we will stop you,” they’d be lucky to escape with all their bones intact.
The second article, “Conservatives for Criminal Justice Reform,” was published in the September 26 issue of the Wall Street Journal. The article boasts about the billions of dollars Conservatives have saved taxpayers by the reduction of prison populations through sentencing alternatives other than prison. Here are some highlights from the article:
Some criminals need to be in expensive prison cells, but shouldn’t we be doing a better job of determining who? For too long, courts and corrections officials were given a blank check to incarcerate at will yet were never held to answer for the poor results: high recidivism rates, driven by offenders who left prison with unresolved drug and mental-health problems and no job prospects.
We must not go backward, and the states are showing us why. In 2007, the Texas Legislature projected the state would need 17,000 new prison beds over the next five years, at a cost of $2 billion. Conservative lawmakers and then-Gov. Rick Perry instead expanded the use of drug courts, community treatment and other alternatives. Ten years later, the reforms have allowed Texas to avoid more than $3 billion in new spending and close four prisons with four more planned closures. Crime has dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s.
Since Texas’ pioneering move, other states have followed. After South Carolina passed substantial criminal justice reforms in 2010, the state cut its prison population by 14%, closed six prisons, and saved $491 million—all while crime continued to decline.
It’s true that Texas has closed down several prisons and saved the taxpayers a bunch of money thereby and by not having to build projected new prisons. However, where do those Conservatives get that nonsense of crime dropping to levels not seen since the 1960s. More smoke-and-mirrors!
Some years ago, the nation experienced some significant crime rate reductions, but those were thought to be cyclical. In recent years there has been a steady rise in those rates, including homicide rates. In Texas, crime rates in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, the Houston-Galveston area, San Antonio and the state’s Berkeley, Austin, are not anywhere as low as they were in the 1960s.
Texas parole authorities claim a success rate of better than 70 percent. There is no way on earth the state can convince me that the Texas parole success rate is anywhere near as high as they claim it is. California which has one of the best parole systems in the country only claims a success rate of between 40 and 50 percent, and that is with pressure on parole officers not to charge their parolees with parole violations. For Texas to achieve such a low recidivism rate, its parolees would have to receive almost no parole supervision and parole officers would have to be ignoring almost all parole violations.
And what about all those rosy reports about crime reduction? In their book “The Crime Numbers Game: Management by Manipulation,” Professors Eli Silverman and John Eterno exposed NYPD’s manipulation of crime statistics in order to make the department and the mayor look good. “Police Manipulations of Crime Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations,” a subsequent study conducted by Silverman, Eterno and Arvind Verma, revealed that the crime stat manipulations have continued unabated since Silverman and Eterno’s book was published five years ago.
In New York some rapes were classified as criminal trespass and thefts as lost property. There is no reason to believe that the crime statistics are cooked only in New York. In Houston several homicides were classified as suicides even though the victims had been shot multiple times.
Thus the reduction in crime rates does not compute. California's prison population reduction program and its reclassification of some felonies to misdemeanors has led to a significant increase in all categories of crime.
Politicians and criminal justice practitioners are good at cooking the books to make it appear their bonehead programs are a huge success..
When Conservatives reduce prison populations to save costs, they are endangering public safety.
I'll leave you with one of my sayings: "A 'non-violent' criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets!"
No comments:
Post a Comment