"Smart on Crime" is the name given a well-intentioned libertarian organization promoting, most prominently, reducing prison populations by shorter sentences and early release. Those targeted to benefit would be -- heard this one before? -- "low-level, non-violent" criminals.
The Number One example of Smart on Crime's success has been Texas. The Lone Star state has been displayed relentlessly as a "deep red" jurisdiction that's made huge strides in criminal justice reform. As always, it was promised that such reform would "keep us just as safe."
Smart on Crime has not been shy about claiming credit for Texas's continuing low crime rate while these "carefully crafted programs" have done their intended work. Never once have I seen the phrase "correlation does not mean causation" used in discussing the relationship between maintaining low crime in Texas and reform's implementation.
I have a strong feeling, however, that, in light of Texas' just-released and disastrous UCR violent crime statistics for 2016, that phrase is about to make a big comeback.
Here's a summary of the grim violent crime news:
According to data compiled by the Department ofPublic Safety's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)program, the overall major crime rate (the numberof crimes per 100,000 population) in Texas for 2016decreased 1.6% compared to 2015. The violentcrime rate increased 5.6%, as each offense wentup: murder increased by 10.4%; rape rate increasedby 7.7%; robbery increased by 2.9%; and aggravatedassault increased by 6.4%. The overall propertycrime rate decreased by 2.6%, burglary decreasedby 4.2%; larceny-theft decreased by 2.6%. Motorvehicle theft increased by 0.8%. While the overallstate index by volume decreased 0.3% compared to2015, violent crime by volume increased by 6.9%.
Interesting data, and at least Texas property was safer in 2016 compared to 2015. What I wonder is why the uptick in violent crimes, especially murder, ought not be attributed to the declining use of the death penalty in Texas. That seems a telling violent crime arena in which punishments have gone down dramatically in recent years.
Also, this recent report suggests South Carolina might be able to replace Texas as a "smart on crime" favorite:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2017/09/data-trends-south-carolina-criminal-justice-reform
State changes occur over a backdrop of national trends. Here in California, proponents of softer sentencing have been crowing that property crimes rates have been flat. True, but in the same period that the country as a whole has enjoyed a drop in property crime that California has not shared.
Unfortunately, the feds are very slow getting their numbers out, so we can't do this comparison yet for 2016.
An important set of numbers we won't get at all,unfortunately, is something like the National Crime Victimization Survey for individual states. If the UCR numbers drop, how much of that is a crime drop and how much is a reporting drop? NCVS is helpful on a national level, but it doesn't report state-by-state, probably because the sample size is too small.
"What I wonder is why the uptick in violent crimes, especially murder, ought not be attributed to the declining use of the death penalty in Texas."
1. What one "wonders" is, while certainly interesting (e.g., I wonder what happened to Ohio State in the Oklahoma game), not evidence of anything.
2. The core proposition here is that Smart on Crime has been telling us that, if its "reforms" are implemented, we'll be just as safe. According to the UCR report that you notably do not dispute, that is simply not true.
3. After years of wailing that the death penalty has no deterrent power -- and, if anything, INCREASES murder through the "brutalization effect" -- we now hear the suggestion that this same death penalty has oodles of deterrent power after all, so that the decline in its use causes more murder.
Far out!!!
I really do love how allies of the defense bar turn on a dime and, when inconvenient truth raises its nasty head, argue the exact opposite of what they've been insisting upon for decades.
4. The truth is that the death penalty does have deterrent power, unless one makes the silly argument that no one has EVER been deterred from committing murder by the prospect of getting the DP. The only serious question is how MUCH deterrent power it has.
I don't know that answer to that question, but I do know (as Kent suggests) that the gathering and then the reporting of punishment statistics has a long lag time, much too long to account for the upsurge of violent crime in Texas last year even if the DP were used as punishment for violent crime -- which, except for a tiny percentage of such crime, it isn't.
Bill,
1. I wonder a lot (especially about OSU's offensive struggles), and perhaps my wondering is of value to you, perhaps not. But I continue to wonder why --- and continue to find it very interesting and notable --- that folks here at C&C have not been inclined to assert that increases in murders in recent years might be linked to decreases in death sentences and executions in recent years.
2. Like everyone who questions simple claims, you are right to question any assertion that any particular CJ policy is sure to make us safer. But S on C folks would assert that reforms got started in Texas in 2005 and made the state consistently safer over a decade and any uptick in crime in any year needs to be judged against that backdrop. You may not find that claim compelling or convincing, but as you have said elsewhere recently, you cannot cherry pick one data point and claim it alone disproves a claim based on many data points.
3. Though many abolitionists assert and believe the DP has no deterrent power, I am not an abolitionist and have never made such a claim and have always been agnostic on this important question. There is no turning on a dime here, but rather a genuine attempt to understand the various forces that may influence crime rates.
4. Since you feel confident the DP does keep us safer, Bill, why are you not yet critical of the Sessions Justice Department for not trying to get the federal DP functional again? The foot dragging is worse and more mysterious than in California in getting folks to the execution chamber, and avowed supporters of the DP control all the branches of the federal government.
Can you explain why this is not a priority or even getting a mention in the midst of stated DOJ concerns about a violent crime wave nationwide? DAG Rosenstein was chirping about the rule of law in a speech to Heritage yesterday, but I do not see much of an effort to apply the law to the 60+ people on federal death row, included more than few who have been there 20+ years.
Doug,
Increases in murders in recent years might be linked to decreases in death sentences and executions in recent years.
But I don't have the data to say anything stronger: "are" rather than "might be" or "caused by" rather than "linked to." Academics without policy agendas who used to study capital punishment deterrence have been bullied out of the field.
Doug --
1. I'm always interested in what you wonder about, and welcome your sharing it here. It's just not EVIDENCE of anything, any more than what I wonder about is evidence of anything.
2. "Like everyone who questions simple claims, you are right to question any assertion that any particular CJ policy is sure to make us safer."
Very glad to hear you say this. It might be advisable to say it in connection with the three or four dozen posts at SL&P that, without any qualification or hedging, have proclaimed that we'll be "just as safe" if we do sentencing reform.
At best, Smart on Crime cannot know this, and it now turns out to be false in the state where they've invested most of their capital.
"But S on C folks would assert that reforms got started in Texas in 2005 and made the state consistently safer over a decade and any uptick in crime in any year needs to be judged against that backdrop."
By the same reasoning you used in your first comment, though, I could say that Texas' robust use of the death penalty until only the last year or so accounted for its overall crime decrease over that period, no?
Again -- to get away from debating points -- the DP does have deterrent value, but is used so very infrequently, in Texas and nationally, that such power is insufficient for anyone to say with confidence that it significantly affects the murder rate, and still less the VIOLENT CRIME rate, since very, very little violent crime is even eligible for capital punishment.
3. If I'm recalling correctly, you are not a death penalty agnostic but a very reluctant retentionist. I think I asked you on FB a few times if you thought, on the evidence presently known, that Dylann Roof should be executed, and, eventually, you said yes.
Am I getting that wrong?
4. "Since you feel confident the DP does keep us safer, Bill, why are you not yet critical of the Sessions Justice Department for not trying to get the federal DP functional again?"
Because, as the Left knows, I'm the Rasputin of DOJ and I never criticize my minions.
Oh...........wait..........you might want a serious answer. No problem!!
Very, very few federal offenses are eligible for the DP. For almost all our history, the DP has been a state remedy, because it is overwhelmingly state jurisdictions that prosecute murder. Hence I don't expect DOJ to be "pushing" the DP. Indeed, I don't want it "pushed" at all. I don't relish executions. But I think they are just in egregious cases, and imperative as an expression of a moral confidence the country has earned and must, for its own good, preserve. What matters most to me is not the frequency of the DP but the frequency of its AVAILABILITY, which is why I strongly oppose the one-size-fits-all, never-ever-no-matter-what remedy of abolition.
"DAG Rosenstein was chirping about the rule of law in a speech to Heritage yesterday, but I do not see much of an effort to apply the law to the 60+ people on federal death row, included more than few who have been there 20+ years."
The topic of Rod's speech was, I believe, white collar prosecutions, which are not subject to the DP in either state or federal jurisdiction. You should be happy to know that I agree with the implications of his talk -- and with you -- that we need to take another look at the Yates "tough-and-tougher" memo on politically incorrect crime; and more generally with your well-reasoned arguments in favor of mens rea reform.
It is a darn shame, Kent, that academics without policy agenda get bullied for any research, though that reality calls for advocates with a policy agenda to double down on sharp advocacy. That is why I am so very eager to see folks here at C&C asking more questions about the possible links between declining use of the DP and increases in violent crime. I know I won't hear these questions being asked in the academy.
And Bill:
1. Very little said by academics or advocacy groups is evidence of anything other than as evidence of what gets said (and repeated) by academics or advocacy groups.
2. This is so much hedging in all my own words at SL&P one could claim I am trying to build a maze. I get assailed by folks left and right who think they know my positions based on what others say that I reprint on my blog. I know others are wrong about my thinking because I am not even sure of my own thinking on so many fronts. But I am sure I am consistently asserting that simple answers to complex problems are always insufficient.
3. The no simple answers is why I do not know if it is right to call me a "retentionist" because I would likely in modern times vote against retaining the death penalty for cost/rule-of-law reasons, especially at the state level for "standard" murders. But, because I am consequentialist and a big fan of democratic rule and the rule of law, I think it important to carry forward with capital punishment in cases like Dylann Roof as long as our laws provide for such punishment. And, most critically, given the evidence that may suggest execution murderers may save many innocent lives, my consequentialist commitments make me ever eager for the latest data/assessments on this front. I would need a lot more time/energy to explain even further why "agnostic" is my favorite label for my views on this front --- and so many others.
4. By pushing the DP at the federal level, Bill, I mean just making some effort to actually carry out the 5 dozen death sentences already given to the worst of the worst. I have not studied every federal capital case, but if the majority of folks on federal death row are like Roof, it is a travesty that it is taking decades to carry out their sentences. Why hasn't Prez Trump or AG Sessions even considered execution dates for some of the folks on the federal death row there for decades and without any active appeals?