There is a major political push going on to get law enforcement organizations to flip and support the badly drafted and ill-conceived legislation titled the "First Step Act," which I prefer to call the Faux Pas Act. See this post.
There have been reports that the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association had "gone wobbly" on us, to borrow Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase. They have not.
These three organizations today issued this joint letter.
The current draft of the First Step legislation remains troubling to the leaders of law enforcement. Sheriffs are elected solely to protect our communities, and Police Chiefs have taken an oath to protect the public. We feel unless the changes recommended below are enacted, this legislation creates a high-risk path for dangerous criminals with gun crime histories to early release from prison. This amounts to a social experiment with the safety of our communities and the lives of Sheriffs, deputies and police officers in the balance. Please know that we did not come to this conclusion lightly. We have been working diligently with the Administration to correct these inequities. It is our hope the Senate will listen to the nation's elected Sheriffs and the Chiefs of Police of our nation's most populous cities.* * *In its current form, we oppose this legislation. However, if these changes can be made to address our concerns, we stand ready to work further with the Senate and the Administration.
Reports that the Fraternal Order of Police has gone wobbly are, unfortunately, true.
The suggested changes in this letter seem relatively minor, and the groups suggest they would endorse the FSA if these changes are made. I assume you would not endorse the FSA even with these changes, Kent. Is that right?
Any version of this insane proposal will increase crime. I don’t understand why any law enforcement agency would support this with or without the proposed changes.
My objections are as stated in my letter, and I would not support the act unless they were fixed.
Primarily, I would not support credits for participation in rehabilitation programs unless limited to programs demonstrated by methodologically valid studies (including random assignment to treatment and control groups) to produce a significant reduction in recidivism.
I also think we need a lot more emphasis on in-prison employment. The bill is very weak on that.
I agree 100% with Kent that the rehabilitative programs must show a history of actually reducing recidivism or not be included. As a supporter of “evidence based” programs, surely Douglas would oppose any bill without this demand, right?
You are right, Tarls, that I want effectual, not ineffectual, reforms. And we have some good data reviews from this White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Returns-on-Investments-in-Recidivism-Reducing-Programs.pdf
But I also know that federal mandatory minimums and very long prison terms as too often applied are, generally speaking, ineffectual and a poor return on investment. That is why I favor their reform.