Sending non-violent small time offenders to prison is the same as sending them to school to learn to be professional criminals…
President Donald Trump is committed to restoring safety in America. Just after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as his Attorney General, he signed three executive orders that were designed to do just that.
One order is focused on criminal cartels, another involves the creation of a task force that will be focused on reducing violent crime, and the third instructs the Justice Department to implement a plan that intends to stop crime against law enforcement officers.
This all sounds good, and many law enforcement department heads along with the rank and file hailed the new direction the administration is taking. President Trump’s orders were welcomed as a new day for law enforcement by many, including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Over the last few years under the Obama administration, many law enforcement officers have felt unsupported at best, and as an enemy of the Obama Justice Department at worst.
You would think all law enforcement agencies would be happy, but in today’s world of politics, police officials grapple with differing theories and varied approaches and policies. Without tangible results, there is little agreement on the best approach to take.
More than 200 current and veteran law enforcement leaders say that President Trump’s approach could be a potential waste of federal resources and make communities more dangerous. They are part of a group known as Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration. Two members of this group are former Dallas Police Chief David Brown and Former Superintendent and Police Chief Ronal Serpas. Serpas related that today’s policies too often rely only on jail and prison, (and) are ineffective in preserving public safety.
Not to confuse the matter more, but the disagreement is not with the efforts to protect law enforcement officers or to go after the cartels. Everyone agrees with those initiatives, and they are widely heralded as a great turn away from the approach of the former administration and Justice Department under the Obama/Holder administration. The rift comes with the approaches to crime prevention and the incarceration of nonviolent criminals.
There are two main conflicting theories in the world of policing today. One is the hard line law and order approach, the lock them up and throw away the key crowd. The results of that approach has led to an ever increasing jail and prison population in this country, as well as rising costs of housing and confinement, and is based on the idea of incapacitation and retribution.
The other theory is based around reform and prevention. This approach looks at the type of crime, whether it was violent or nonviolent, the history of the offender, and possible ways to divert the offender into programs to reform them and reintegrate them into society. This is done on a case by case basis, and violent criminals still face severe and lengthy prison sentences under this approach. The goal is to reduce or eliminate jail sentences for non-violent offenders.
These conflicting theories are evident in the views and approach of two law enforcement department heads that police the same jurisdiction, and it serves as a great example to aid in understanding the issue. These two officers are on opposite sides of many issues that concern law enforcement and are a perfect example of how the approach to crime reduction in the US is not settled, even among law enforcement officials with decades of experience.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has taken a get-tough, lock-em-up approach to policing, including the use of military equipment. Many law enforcement officials see his hard-line approach as somewhat outdated. In response to his get-tough stance, he has become a frequent guest of some of the more conservative news channels. Taking the opposing view is Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, who sees the anger of the black residents and crime in that community as a product of poverty and decades of official neglect. He believes the biggest gains will come from increased cooperation between officers and the community.
Many studies over the last few years have concluded that just locking up more and more criminals, many for non-violent or minor drug possession, has been counterproductive to lowering the crime rate as a whole. Research also shows that incarceration can increase future crime. Criminologists call this the “criminogenic effect” of prison. It has a particularly compelling effect on low-level offenders. Once individuals enter prison, they are surrounded by other prisoners who have often committed more serious and violent offenses. Prison conditions also breed violent and anti-social behavior.
In that light, several states have taken a different approach to policing, and have been able to reduce crime rates while reducing prison populations at the same time. One example is from Michigan, where lawmakers eliminated mandatory sentencing for most non-violent drug offenses in 2002. Over the next decade, Michigan decreased its prison population by 14 percent and reduced violent crime by 16 percent. In 2010, South Carolina also ended mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession while enacting other reforms as well. Over the next four years, the prison population dropped by 9 percent, and violent crime decreased 17 percent.
There isn’t neccesarily a direct correlation between reducing the incarceration of non-violent offenders and crime reduction.
Over the past ten years, reducing unnecessary incarceration has become a central focus of the conservative policy agenda. Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wi), former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, and the Republican National Committee have all vocally supported criminal justice reform.
Senate Bill 2123, known as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has broad support among conservatives. The bill includes limiting government spending, preserving individual liberty, curbing governmental overreach, more efficiently reducing crime, and offering the opportunity for redemption. Law enforcement similarly supports sentencing reform. Reducing unnecessary incarceration will free funding and time for our officers to focus on targeting and preventing violent crime and making our streets safer. National law enforcement groups including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs’ Association, National District Attorneys Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and law enforcement leaders across the country have all strongly endorsed the bill.
How President Trump and his new Attorney General Sessions decide to handle the crime control initiative in the new administration is yet to be seen. The President made a point in his campaign to be seen as the “Law and Order” candidate, something the entire nation welcomes. Law enforcement agencies, as well as individual officers, feel bolstered that the administration is no longer marginalizing them.
President Trump characteristically issues broad directives. Any good leader puts forth vision and direction and then it is up to their subordinates and departments to implement that guidance. The Justice Department, and the advisors from whom they seek council, will formulate exactly how this directive goes into practice.
On a personal note, as someone with over 30 years in the law enforcement field, I have seen both sides of the coin. In my experience, backed up by research and studies into criminal justice, I found my attitude changed over time. When I first joined the law enforcement ranks, I was solidly in the column of the hard line, “break the law and go directly to jail.” Over the years I saw how this might not have been the best approach in all cases. The officer on the street doesn’t set the rules or the sentences. The officer enforces the laws as they are written and leaves the rest to the criminal justice system.
What the officer does do, is deal with the aftermath. I saw non-violent small time drug offenders that I had arrested go to prison for years over a small possession of marijuana. It all depended on the law at the time and the courts. I also saw that many young first-time offenders came out of the correctional system as very hardened and dangerous criminals. Sending non-violent small time offenders to prison is the same as sending them to school to learn to be professional criminals, where they are schooled in violence, indoctrinated into gang culture, and often become much more dangerous than they were before being arrested.
Now don’t get me wrong, law breakers need to pay the price. They need to answer for their actions, and many criminals need to go away for a very, very long time. In those cases, rehabilitation is not the goal. The goal is incapacitation, where they are no longer a threat to society. Cases of robbery, assault, homicide, human trafficking, and violent crime must be dealt with harshly and swiftly.
On the other hand, more emphasis on diversion for first-time, non-violent offenders may be a better method than incarceration. Focused counseling, monitoring, and guidance will, in my opinion, and in the view of many law enforcement professionals today, produce more desirable results than merely locking up everyone and throwing away the key.
While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world’s population, it houses around 22 percent of the world’s prisoners. Our country locks up more people than any other in the world. This sure seems unbalanced, and this rate is something that needs addressing. The economic cost, the public safety cost, and the issue of creating hardened criminals out of first time non-violent offenders must be reexamined. In my mind, there just has to be a better way.
Jon Harris is an OpsLens contributor and former Army NCO, civilian law enforcement officer, and defense contractor with over 30 years in the law enforcement community. He holds a B.S. in Government and Politics and an M.S. in Criminal Justice.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected].
