A recent poll conducted by the progressive think tank Third Way reports that crime is a very serious issue to 57% of the public. When asked which was the bigger threat, 69% of respondents chose violent crime, while only 19% picked a terrorist attack. And while historically Republicans have polled as more concerned about crime than Democrats, among the respondents to this survey, 44% identified themselves as Democrats, while 35% were Republicans.

America’s criminal justice policy is currently at a tipping point. In the 1990s, after over two decades of public pressure for more effective law enforcement and tougher sentencing of criminals, crime rates dropped dramatically. But, as we have learned from earlier cycles, when crime rates have gone down, public pressure for tough law enforcement declines. This has left many state policymakers free to divert resources from the maintenance of adequate prison and jail space to keep repeat felons off the streets to other more politically rewarding programs.

In some states this has resulted in overcrowded, poorly maintained prisons, forcing emergency policies to divert or grant early release to thousands of habitual criminals. Federal lawmakers have also lost interest, opting to reduce support for state law enforcement by 56% from 2001 to the present. We need to look back no further than the 1970s for a reminder that sentencing or paroling criminals to community-based treatment and re-entry programs only works for the fraction of those who want to go straight. Invariably, a decision to release more criminals from confinement is a decision to increase the level of crime and the number of victims. If tax dollars are going to be invested to provide counseling, education, and vocational training to convicted criminals, most of this should occur while they are locked up.

While most crime fighting is done at the state level, the President can have a powerful influence on how local politicians address the issue. All three current presidential candidates have had something to say about crime, but none have made it a prominent issue in the campaign.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken inconsistent stands on crime issues. For example, as first lady in 1994 and 1996, Clinton said that she supported “Three Strikes” sentencing of repeat offenders. Since becoming a presidential candidate, she has modified her position, announcing last June that mandatory sentencing is too widely used causing an unacceptable increase in incarceration. She supports diverting nonviolent drug offenders (including dealers?) to programs rather than prison.

Obama, as a state legislator, opposed the death penalty in 2004. As a U. S. Senator in 2006, Obama said that some crimes justify a death penalty. He questions the need for harsh penalties for drug dealers and supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation for criminals. Both he and Clinton want more enforcement of politically-fashionable hate crime laws, and both support more federal funding for state law enforcement.

For both candidates, the primary criteria for their judicial appointments is fidelity to Roe v. Wade, a decision admired by many of the same judges and lawyers who champion criminals’ rights.

Republican candidate John McCain has the deepest voting record of the three and a more clearly defined position on crime issues. He has consistently supported tough sentencing for drug dealers and habitual criminals. He voted for limits on federal habeas corpus in death penalty cases and has expressed his support for capital punishment several times. He supported creating a national registry of sex offenders, but has been inconsistent regarding hate crime laws.

Senator McCain has promised to appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts. As the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, his votes to confirm conservative justices, from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006, demonstrate this commitment.

There are very important law enforcement decisions a President makes beyond supporting policies and appointing judges. The Attorney General, who heads the entire U. S. Department of Justice, is appointed by the President, as are the 93 United States Attorneys across the country. Bank robbers, interstate drug traffickers, and criminals who smuggle contraband across our borders are prosecuted by these people. The President also appoints the Secretary of State and determines how our country deals with nations that produce illegal drugs or are safe havens for drug cartels and criminals who traffic in illegal firearms, women, and children; pornography; internet fraud; and identity theft. The performance of these agencies can either invite or discourage crime in America.

The fundamental responsibility of our government is to assure the safety of its citizens . . . to protect us from threats, be they foreign or domestic. It would be a tragic mistake to elect a President who did not take this responsibility seriously.