Kent has pretty much debunked today's release of the Constitution Project's "Smart on Crime" report -- and I use the word "report" advisedly, since it's actually just the defense bar's wish list, and an old one at that.
The one thing I would add is that you can get the quick story on a "report" like this just from its vocabulary. The phrase "Smart on Crime" always means a bunch of pro-criminal proposals. In this sense, it's like the phrase "government investment," which always means handing over taxpayer money to constituencies favored by the party in power, or "revenue enhancement," which always means increased taxes.
The particularly noteworthy item about today's "report" is that it omits to mention -- indeed, it intentionally obscures -- the fact that we already know what is, in truth, "smart on crime," namely, punishing it. The statistics are unanswerable. As more and more criminals have been incarcerated over the last two decades, crime has plummeted to levels not seen in fifty years. When the death penalty was reinstated and became actively used starting in the later 1980's, the murder rate likewise plummeted, and is now also at lows not seen in fifty years.
If "smart on crime" meant what a normal person would think it means, i.e., what works to reduce crime, we already know the answer: When the crooks are in jail, they aren't robbing your house. This is not exactly rocket science. But the Constitution Project and its pals aren't about to tell you. Instead, they're going to tell you the opposite.
It was because vocabulary is an excellent tip-off to defense double-talk that I started the "Dictionary for the Politically Incorrect," see, e.g., here, here and here. The release of today's "report" makes me think I should crank it up again.