Safe
Streets
Wm
Barr
WSJ
102722
The violent crime surge was preventable. It was caused
by progressive politicians reverting to the same reckless revolving-door
policies that during the 1960s and ’70s produced the greatest tsunami of
violent crime in American history. We reversed that earlier crime wave with the
tough anticrime measures adopted during the Reagan-Bush era. We can stop this
one as well.
Studies have repeatedly shown that most predatory
crime is committed by a small, hard-core group of habitual offenders. They are
a tiny fraction of the population—I estimate roughly 1%—but are responsible for
between half and two-thirds of predatory violent crime. Each of these offenders
can be expected to commit scores, even hundreds, of crimes a year, frequently
while on bail, probation or parole. The only time they aren’t committing crimes
is when they’re in prison. For this group, the likelihood of reoffending
usually doesn’t recede until they reach their late 30s.
The only way to reduce violent crime appreciably
is to keep this cohort off the streets. We know with certainty that for each of
these criminals held in prison, there are hundreds of people who aren’t being
victimized. This “incapacitation” strategy requires laws, like those in the
federal system, that allow judges to detain repeat offenders before trial when
they pose a danger to the community, and that impose tough sentences on repeat
violent offenders.
History shows this strategy works. Before
1960, violent crime in the U.S. was modest and stable. In the early ’60s,
however, liberal reformers pushed to turn state justice systems into revolving
doors, with violent offenders quickly released on parole or probation.
Predictably, violent crime exploded, going from 160 crimes per 100,000 population
in 1960 to 758 per 100,000 in 1991.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration
and several large states started locking up violent offenders, and the nation’s
prison population rose from about 300,000 to almost 700,000. This radically
flattened the rate of violent crime, which rose only 11% during the ’80s. By
1991, when I first became attorney general, the revolving door was in overdrive
in many states. Nationally, murderers served less than six years on average;
the average time served for rape was three years. In Texas, offenders typically
served only 15% of their sentences. Five of 8 felons released from prison were
arrested for new crimes within three years.
The George H.W.
Bush administration initiated the doubling of federal prison capacity,
pushed states to do likewise, and launched a broad movement to toughen up state
justice systems. It also greatly expanded joint federal, state and local task
forces to target the worst violent criminals for stiff sentences under federal
gun, gang and drug-trafficking laws.
The results of these policies were
stunning. By 1992, as more violent offenders were incarcerated, the trajectory
of violent crime started falling for the first time in decades.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush continued these
policies, and from 1991 to 2013, the total prison population in the U.S.
doubled—from roughly 800,000 to 1.6 million. At the same time, violent crime
plummeted, dropping for 23 years. By 2014 it had been cut in half—to a level
not seen since 1970—and homicides of black victims were down by about 5,000 a
year.
Nevertheless, progressives complained: Why
were we imprisoning record numbers when crime was receding? They missed the
point. Crime was dropping precisely because we were keeping violent criminals
in prison. Progressives call this “mass incarceration,” but their rhetoric is
deceptive. It implies people are being locked up indiscriminately. On the
contrary, incapacitation is a precision strategy. It targets and uses prison
space primarily for violent criminals who pose the greatest threat to public
safety.
Unfortunately, 23 years of successful
crime reduction came to an end with the resurgence of progressive policies in
the Obama administration, which saw a return to the revolving door and the
demonization of police. Incarceration rates started falling again, and by 2014
crime rates were headed back up. This reversal was temporarily halted by the
Trump administration, which succeeded in driving violent crime down until the
summer of 2020. It started to climb in the wake of the Covid pandemic and the
Black Lives Matter riots. It continues to rise without any end in sight.
Progressives have no solution. As in the
’60s, they call for more social spending to address the supposed “root causes”
of violent crime. But even if we knew how to address the root causes
effectively, which we don’t, implementing the solution would take decades.
People are entitled to protection now. Even the best-designed social programs
have no chance of success in neighborhoods strangled by violence and fear. Law
and order is a prerequisite for social progress.
Progressives say we can’t afford to keep
violent predators in prison. On the contrary, we can’t afford not to. A 1992
Justice Department report, “The Case for More Incarceration,” showed that the
cost of keeping a chronic violent criminal in prison is small compared with the
costs of letting him roam the streets.
In other contexts, we spend huge amounts
to reduce the risk of premature death or injury to members of the public,
including billions on highway safety or environmental quality. If we started
using the same cost-benefit analysis for law enforcement, we would be spending
many times more than we do today on police and corrections.
The very purpose of government is to
secure a peaceful society—making life safe for law-abiding citizens by
protecting them from violent predators. Progressive politicians are doing the
opposite, blighting the lives of the law-abiding with their warped solicitude
for the criminal few. We can stop the swelling crime wave only by rejecting
these politicians and their destructive policies. It is time for a return to
sanity.
Mr. Barr is a distinguished fellow at the
Hudson Institute. He served as U.S. attorney general, 1991-93 and 2019-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment