The latest Brennan Center report indicates crime is down in 2018 in LA and SF and that murder is down a lot in all big CA cities in 2018. Do they have their numbers right?

The preliminary FBI numbers for 2018 are not available yet, and local numbers are often incomplete. In 2014 the LA Times caught Los Angeles under reporting violent crime by 1,200 assaults, so we'll wait for the FBI numbers. I should note that three years in a row of increases in violent crime in California has not happened in 26 years and should not be dismissed. The calculus is fairly simple: reducing the consequences for bad behavior results in more bad behavior. I'd be very interested in any peer-reviewed broad range of offender research that proves otherwise.

Michael, I agree that the uptick in crime in CA over the past three years should not be dismissed, and that is why I find the downturn reported by Brennan for 2018 so important and worthy of emphasis.

As for your simple calculus, I am not sure it is that easy. In the alcohol and drug prohibition contexts, increased punishment can drive up the cost of the goods sought and market prices, which in turn can incentivize more bad behavior as new persons are lured into the market (especially if enforcement rates are relatively low so the true "discounted" consequences do not go up much).

More generally, Pew has a lot of research documenting some state have found ways to lower prison rates or punishment levels without a negative impact on crime rates. Here are a couple examples:

Most States Cut Imprisonment and Crime
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/imprisonment-and-crime

More than two-thirds of states cut crime and imprisonment from 2008-16:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/01/16/national-prison-rate-continues-to-decline-amid-sentencing-re-entry-reforms

I do not cite these studies to try to refute you calculus, but rather to just say again the story always seems to me complicated.

The Brennan Center, the PPIC, Pew and the Bureau of Justice Statistics will all be reporting that crime went down in California this year, but this will not be a reflection of reality. The numbers will be driven by a sharp decline in reported property crimes, caused by the Proposition 47 downgrade of the vast majority of property and drug felonies to misdemeanors. As noted in an earlier post, state law forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime. Even if that law did not exist, the state's criminal justice system does not have anything close to the resources to arrest and punish misdemeanants, so most of these offenses go unreported and unpunished. For all practical purposes, stealing an $800 flat screen from Wal Mart or selling $600 worth of heroin to a junkie are no longer punishable offenses in California. I believe that violent crime in the state may have gone up again in 2018, as more so-called low level offenders graduate to aggravated assault, rape and murder.

Michael, please stop making the inaccurate statement that California law "forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime." As Kent confirmed in a prior thread, California law reflects the common law tradition that misdemeanants can be arrested if a warrant is secured or if police witness the crime. I trust you would not say the US Constitution forbids police from searching a house unless they witness a crime inside, and so I hope you will stop saying California law "forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime."

As for crime rates, I agree that as we change the definition of various crimes in various ways, our calculation of the number of crimes will change. The challenge of fairly and consistently measuring crime over time is an enduring one. For many years, many on the left lamented that rape and domestic violence were under-reported and under-arrested. I am sure an extraordinary amount of drug crimes --- not to mention under-age drinking and drunk driving and illegal firearm possession and sales --- go undetected and unsanctioned. The latest BJS numbers on victimization are out, and that metric does not paint a rosy picture of recent trends. These are issues that merit continued discussion and debate.

My sense it that murder is a crime metric that may have the least amount of "statistical noise" (and also, of course, involves the most serious of all crimes). That is why I think it would be heartening if the Brennan murder data proves accurate, and that murder is down a lot in all big CA cities (and elsewhere) in 2018. I trust you are rooting for that to be an accurate reality.

Tarls, is it fair to suggest that the only way to "abandon letting criminals out of jail" is to give all criminals LWOP or the death penalty?

I am open to hearing continued discussion and debate concerning which and how many criminals you think should die behind bars or be executed. But unless you think all or the vast majority criminals should die behind bars or be executed, the real question for most offenders is not whether we should let out but when. And because prison is costly, and can sometimes prove counterproductive if its criminogenic for an offender or others, there is always going to be continuous discussion and debate over whether we picked the "right" terms for various offenders.

If interest, we might focus this discussion on a few recent criminals in the news, say Michael Cohen and Bill Cosby. I would love to hear your take on their sentencings and whether you think it misguided to continue debating if and when they can be released from prison.

"state law forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime"
--Rushford

"Michael, please stop making the inaccurate statement that California law "forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime." ... California law reflects the common law tradition that misdemeanants can be arrested if a warrant is secured or if police witness the crime." ... and so I hope you will stop.."
--Berman

~~ So Prof. Berman, you are redundant in your admonishment because he left-out the legal potential for a misdemeanor arrest with the securing of a warrant?

Is that significant, or are you not protesting too much?

Adamakis, the first time I saw Michael's statement, I was troubled to hear that a misdemeanant could escape arrest entirely in CA unless literally caught in the act by the police. I looked up the law and found out that misdemeanants in fact can be arrested in CA as long as a warrant for their arrest is secured. Consequently, it seems to me a problematic misstatement of the law to assert that CA law "forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime."

I think Michael would be inclined to say that police generally do not think it worth their time to secure a warrant to go after misdemeanants. That's a fine and important point, but goes to a discretionary choice by police, not to a state law precluding certain police activity. As Michael states this, he wrongly suggest that CA forbids certain police activity, but that is not the case.

If you think this but a minor concern, Adamakis, I apologize. But I do not think making police get a warrant, generally speaking, is a bad idea unless and until they see a minor crime first-hand.

I think Michael would be inclined to say that police generally do not think it worth their time to secure a warrant to go after misdemeanants.--Berman

Proposition 47 has made it not worth their time. There are tens of thousands of theft and drug crimes committed annually in CA which are now misdemeanors. The amount of time and money a victim would spend to seek a warrant and/or the time and resources the police would expend to investigate misdemeanor thefts and drug offenses and go to a judge for a warrant would easily exceed the budgets of every big-city police agency in the state. In the real world, police chiefs and sheriffs do not have the luxury to waste resources on crimes that are no longer deterred by the consequences. This is particularly true in California, where crimes of violence are increasing.

To say they are simply choosing not to do this is absurd.

But I do not think making police get a warrant, generally speaking, is a bad idea unless and until they see a minor crime first-hand.

Prof. Berman,
Thank you for getting back to me and politely responding.

I graduated from the basic police academy at Cazenovia College via the
Little Falls, NY PD.

We were trained to make arrests for "misdemeanors" and "felonies", but that
in the case of mere "violations", we did need to observe the offense.

To degrade the power of law enforcement as you suggest, is a bad idea,
to put it mildly.

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up." --
JFK paraphrasing Chesterton

Michael, you say "police chiefs and sheriffs do not have the luxury to waste resources on crimes" that are now labelled misdemeanors by Prop 47 especially when "crimes of violence are increasing." In other words, it seems that police chiefs and sheriffs are choosing to focus on crimes that are more serious than the crimes that Prop 47 downgraded. This seems to be exactly what the supporters of Prop 47 wanted to see --- i.e., police and prosecutors giving more attention to other crimes rather than certain drug and property crimes.

I get that you and Adamakis and probably many other think Prop 47 is very bad policy with all sort of bad practical implication and consequences. My understanding is that there will be another proposition on the ballot in CA in 2020 that will reverse some (but not all) of the Prop 47 changes. It will be interesting to watch the political/policy debate over this proposal and to see how the 2020 vote goes.

But all the important and valuable policy debate aside, it remains the reality that it is inaccurate to state that California law "forbids police from arresting misdemeanants unless they witness the crime." That is not the law, and I think it important to get the law right whatever one's position on the broader policy and practical issues that the law implicates.