The sentencing "reform" legislation apparently about to be introduced in the Senate would represent a step back from the system of determinate sentencing that has served our country so well for a generation. Contrary to the current liberal and libertarian anthem, our criminal justice system is hardly in "crisis." The exact opposite is closer to the truth: Over the last 25 years, crime has fallen farther faster than at any time in the country's history. For reasons I have explained many times, see, e.g., here, we should build on, rather than pare back, this success.
Sentencing reform should be rejected strictly on the merits. But it should also be rejected, if a point be made of it, because it will be political poison, certainly for Republicans, who hold the majority in Congress.
In order to see why, one need only ask three questions.
1. There's a national crime wave going on. It started in the spring, is deadly, and shows no sign of abating. There is a degree of denial about this, but denial only in the sense in which that word denotes a psychological condition of turning away from reality.
Some Republicans want to be able to give a positive answer when they're asked, in next year's campaign, "Can you work for bi-partisan agreement with the other side of the aisle?" They see sentencing "reform" as one way to show that, yes, they can.
But that will not be the question in which voters are principally interested. As the bloodshed and heroin epidemic continue in city after city, the question in the campaign will be this: "Did you really vote to give sentencing breaks to criminals when crime is spiking? Could you tell me the logic in that?"
The electorate is interested in bi-partisan co-operation, yes. It is much more interested in staying safe, as any sane person would be. Republicans would be wise to bear this in mind when thinking about where they want to be on this issue.
2. Although we were promised a "reform" bill weeks ago, before Congress's August recess, none showed up.
Why not?
The answer is back-room haggling about how big the sentencing breaks will be, which lucky criminals will get them, and how they can be disguised as something else ("judicial discretion" and "rehabilitation" being the leading candidates).
But, if the otherwise somewhat odd Trump phenomenon shows nothing else, it shows that voters have had it with Washington's back-room dealing and the results it produces. We ought to be able to see out in the open which interest groups have a seat at the hidden sentencing "reform" table, who they represent, and who is funding them and why.
Voters will have questions about all that, too..
3. Finally and relatedly, voters will want to know why ideologically driven billionaires have so much say in the process while the man in the street waits to be handed whatever fait accompli their friends in Congress come up with.
It's no secret the George Soros and the Koch brothers are major, and generous, backers of sentencing "reform" and of some reform groups. That's perfectly their right so far as I'm concerned; people with money have the same First Amendment rights as the rest of us.
But the process has a certain aroma. The wealthy are not the ones principally victimized by crime, and when crime increases -- as it did in the Sixties and Seventies when we had the same loss of nerve -- the poor and minorities will take the brunt of it (as they already are in the current crime spike). Voters will be asking why those least affected by increasing crime had the most say in promoting sentencing breaks for the people who commit it.
Bill, can you provide more links to more evidence of a "national crime wave going on"?
Doug,
Happy to. Although there is a good deal of "hey look, let's not panic" spin in this article, it does disclose that crime is up 16% in big cities nationwide this year alone. And this year still has three and a-half months to go.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/scare-headlines-exaggerated-the-u-s-crime-wave/
But even if there's not a single additional murder in 2015, a 16% murder increase is nothing less than horrifying. "Crime wave" is probably an understatement. I don't think there has been an increase that big year-to-year since the Eighties, if then.
And if you lived near Washington, as I do, you would have no doubt about the crime wave. Just Google "crime wave" and "Washington DC." It is literally the case that I have cut down my trips into the city, and I keep an eye out when I'm there more than I used to. Neighboring Baltimore is even worse.
Bill, I am pretty sure that if there was not a single additional homicide in 2015, the overall homicide rate for 2015 would be WAY down compared to 2014. The 16% increase reported at your link is YTD comparisons (I am pretty sure).
Also, the "percent increase metric" can be less than ideal in a setting where we are often dealing with some small numbers: the data report a 50% increase in murders in Austin, TX(!), but the seemingly much smaller -14% decrease in the much smaller city of Memphis, TN has actually resulted in a net of 8 less total homicides. So I could combine the homicide numbers is Austin and Memphis to report that these two cities, combined, have nearly a 10% total decrease in homicides.
I am not saying any of this to dispute the notion that many major US cities have, generally speaking, been less safe in the first half of 2015 as compared to the first half of 2014. But it seems that if we were to pull out a few outlier violent cities --- Baltimore, Milwaukee, Houston, Chicago, DC, St. Louis --- the overall homicide rate seems to be holding pretty steady elsewhere in the country. And that is why I question whether we really have a national crime wave as much as a big spike in homicides in a handful of (already violent) cities.
For homicide victims and their families, of course, every killing is a horror no matter what the national story. But I continue to think it very important to be very attentive to where the crime problems are truly spiking so that we can best figure out why and what we might wisely do to reverse any bad trends.