Embrace New Thinking on Crime

America’s streets have become much safer over the past decade, but it’s hard to discern that from the speeches of the presidential candidates. The unprecedented drop in crime has rippled through every corner of the country. Murder fell by almost one-third between 1993 and 1999, and other violent crimes dropped by 34% to the lowest point since the 1960s.

Despite a small but disturbing new spike in the homicide rate in Los Angeles and other major cities, the otherwise steady decline of crime is cause for enormous relief and reflection. It also presents an opportunity for fresh thinking in Washington about how we deal with criminals and how best to prevent crime.

Yet, for the most part, George W. Bush and Al Gore are sticking to an old script, heavy on punishment, far too light on rehabilitation and prevention. Still, there are differences between the candidates and enough time left in this campaign for each to discuss more clearly how to preserve and extend the gains in public safety that the past few years have brought and to commit to correcting the inequities in our criminal justice system that erode its integrity.

Guns: Tougher limits on gun possession could go far toward preventing violence, and on this issue the differences between Gore and Bush are sharpest.

Bush’s pro-gun positions mirror many of those held by the National Rifle Assn.; he insists the best gun control measure is tough prosecution of those who illegally sell guns or use a gun during a crime. Since becoming Texas governor, Bush has greatly liberalized state gun laws. Texas residents who receive a state permit may now carry concealed weapons, even in churches and hospitals.

Gore takes a more sensible tack. While he opposed tougher gun laws when in Congress, the vice president now would require handgun owners to obtain a state-issued license after passing a background check and safety test. He supports a ban on so-called “junk guns” similar to that passed last year in California, and he favors closing the gun-show loophole that has allowed some handgun buyers to evade background checks.

Drug crime: Beginning during the 1980s, this nation’s high-profile war on illegal drug use has focused on stiff punishment rather than treatment. Certainly there have been gains--the percentage of young people trying drugs is down from the peaks of the 1980s--but the emphasis on incarceration has produced extreme disparities that the next president should correct. Federal drug-sentencing laws mandate minimum prison terms depending on the type and amount of drug possessed: 500 grams of powder cocaine, for example, means at least five years behind bars. Only five grams of crack cocaine, essentially the same drug, brings the same five-year sentence. But nowhere in the thick federal sentencing guidelines is drug treatment mandated. One result of such policies is that a whopping 57% of all federal prisoners are drug offenders. Many are first-time offenders with no history of violence. Most--nearly 75%--are African American and Latino.

Neither Bush nor Gore has distinguished himself on this issue, retreating instead to vague calls for more anti-drug education, tougher punishment and treatment.

A good first step toward a more constructive drug policy would be to eliminate the inequities in sentencing guidelines and increase treatment options for federal offenders. Congress and President Clinton have been reluctant, fearing the soft-on-crime tag. The next president must do better.

Youthful offenders and rehabilitation: While law enforcement is mostly a state responsibility, the president can lead by urging states to reform their treatment of juveniles and increase spending for rehabilitation. Since 1992, 45 states, including California, have made it easier to prosecute juveniles as adults. While judges in the juvenile system have always had the authority to send particularly brutal or repeat young offenders into the adult prison system, state legislatures have pushed to give less-serious wrongdoers the same fate. By housing young people with adult felons, states are giving these kids personal tutors for a life of crime. A victorious Bush or Gore could help by using the bully pulpit and federal block grants to encourage state officials to think as carefully about rehabilitation for juveniles as they do about incarceration.

The death penalty: Bush and Gore strongly support the death penalty, but growing concerns about its application should prompt better thought about safeguards against executing the innocent. Most death row inmates are state, not federal, prisoners. In many states--Bush’s Texas is a particularly shameful example--defendants without money often are represented by indifferent or incompetent lawyers. Exculpatory evidence omitted at trial is too often excluded from appeals. The next president should make available federal funding to prod states into improving the quality of capital defense counsel and providing DNA testing, where appropriate.

The recent decline of crime allows an opportunity to make lasting inroads against gun violence, drug abuse and juvenile crime. Instead, both candidates fall back on tired--and expensive--answers that focus on prosecution and incarceration. With the exception of Gore’s leadership on gun control, the candidates’ unimaginative thinking on crime may waste a chance for long-term gains in public safety that all Americans clearly want.