Fighting Crime Effectively and Within Our Means

The chorus of stentorian voices clamoring for draconian anti-drug and anti-gun laws are well-intentioned, but they ignore the nationwide problem of limited law enforcement resources.

In an era of budget austerity, the enlightened lawmaker must advance along lines that promise the greatest reduction in serious crime without either prohibitive expenditures or political stalemates. The following four-point program satisfies these crime-reduction, budgetary and political imperatives, and would have a major impact on the most dangerous offenders.

Long-term punishment for recidivists. An enormous proportion of violent crime is perpetrated by recidivists. A federal Bureau of Statistics study shows that approximately two-thirds of all released prison inmates recidivate within three years, and that their new crimes account for approximately 6% of burglaries and robberies. An estimated 72.2% of prisoners first arrested before age 18 recidivate, and the percentage jumps to more than 94% for released prisoners age 18 to 24 who showed 11 or more prior arrests. Approximately 5% of released inmates are charged with 45 or more offenses both before and after release.

These alarming statistics vastly understate the incidence of recidivism because police make an arrest in only 20% of all felony cases. If incorrigibles were imprisoned until they at least reached old age, the incidence of crime would tumble. Accordingly, all multiple recidivists should receive minimum mandatory 30-year prison sentences, and bail should automatically be revoked for an arrest. Congress has set a good example by mandating life terms for two-time drug offenders arrested with more than 50 grams of cocaine and who cause serious bodily injury. The commutation powers of the President and governors would address the exceptional case where the recidivist demonstrated genuine reform and remorse.

Holding grossly negligent decision-makers accountable. Parole authorities are typically shielded by law from liability for injuries inflicted by a parolee whose release proved unwarranted. Thus, in Martinez vs. California (1980), state parole officials escaped liability for a release decision that led to the murder of a 15-year-old girl. At present, the public safety is too frequently short-changed in parole and probation decision-making. To rectify a bias toward improper leniency, liability should be attached to grossly negligent parole or probation decisions that cause harm to third parties.

Repeal federal statutes that block prison industries. Recidivism would be reduced, restitution would be furthered and the cost of prisons partially defrayed by expanding prison industries. But several legislative barriers generally make prison industry unviable. The federal Hawes-Cooper Act of 1929 authorized states to ban commerce in prison-made goods within their borders. The Sumners-Ashurst Act of 1940 made it a federal offense to transport prison-made goods interstate for private use, and the Walsh-Healy Act of 1936 prohibited convict labor on government contracts exceeding $10,000. Recently, a score of exceptions from those prohibitions were authorized if prison labor was paid a prevailing wage, local unions were consulted, nonprison labor was unaffected and the goods were produced in an industry without local unemployment. States would relish the opportunity to further expand prison industries if the inhibiting federal statutes were removed.

Prison Overcrowding. Inmates are regularly released prematurely because of prison crowding and judicial orders limiting custodial populations. The anguishing consequences are reduced deterrence and increased recidivism. It is clear that prison space must be expanded, perhaps in part with earmarked funds earned by prison industries. Further, Congress should limit the remedial authority of federal judges for violations of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. At present, several broad judicial edicts set ceilings on prison or jail populations without adequate proof that overcrowding is actually inflicting cruelty on each inmate. The ceilings force releases or pardons that endanger the community. A statute is needed to limit Eighth Amendment remedies to individual inmates, rather than sweeping orders that adversely affect the whole prison system.

These four steps offer a balanced and effective approach to crime reduction within anticipated law enforcement resources. Its rhetoric may be less exhilarating to the politician or the public than many of the current anti-drug and anti-gun crusades. But the latter, despite the laudable motives of their champions, often reflect a limited vision of the criminal justice system and will not sufficiently affect the total crime problem. To improve the public safety we must develop carefully thought-out measures that ensure long-term success.