The term “crisis” is represented in written Chinese by the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.” This accurately describes the state of tension between America’s racial and ethnic minorities and the police and between our criminal justice system and a growing portion of the American public. The “danger” from destructive action stimulated by irresponsible demagogues is clear; the “opportunity” for constructive and positive action on legitimate civilian grievances is also. Sadly, the latter gets polemic but little well-reasoned and constructive thought.
Healing social rifts, diminishing tensions and increasing confidence in those who legally control violence in our society are national priorities, and we must take the long view. Yes, we must respect our police and look to them for protection; and yes, police practices—lawful and constitutional—should merit respect. And we clearly need: A) more accountable and effective leadership in our courts, prisons and police departments and more accountability for the few “bad eggs” in uniform. B) more effective use of prisoners’ time during incarceration, including basic education and vocational training. C) much improvement in our scandalously over-crowded and decrepit prisons.
But 40 years of criminal justice abuses must also be faced.
With 5% of the world’s population but nearly 25% of the world’s prisoners; with our prisoner recidivism rates multiples of those of all other developed nations; with our death penalties for adults and life imprisonment for juveniles at rates unheard of in other advanced countries, knowledgeable observers regard the U.S. criminal justice system as a national disgrace crying out for reform.
With African-American imprisonment rates six times that of Caucasians, with past Black “stop and frisk” rates in New York off the scale and statistics on Black/police interactions heartbreaking, these problems also can no longer be ignored.
America’s surging mass incarceration rates and huge black/white imprisonment disparities began in the 1960’s, when increased drug use and open disrespect for the police accompanied youthful political dissent and social upheaval.
In 1964, Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater announced, “The abuse of law and order in this country is going to be an issue; at least I am going to make it one.” In 1971, President Nixon declared a “War on Drugs.” The number of people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses increased from 50,000 in 1960 to over 400,000 in 1997. Nationwide, the prison population skyrocketed eightfold since 1970 to 2.4 million today.
“Doubling the conviction rate in this country will do more to cure crime in America than quadrupling the funds for Hubert Humphrey’s war on poverty,” declared President Nixon, inaugurating a national period of severe mandatory sentences, zero tolerance, longer and harsher prison sentences and curtailment of rehabilitation services for prisoners. The infamous Rockefeller drug laws were introduced in 1973.
“Getting tough on crime” was bi-partisan. Jimmy Carter (formerly Governor of Georgia, one of the most repressive states in the nation) was an advocate. Bill Clinton pushed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stimulated the largest all-time expansion of imprisonment.
With fervor similar to that which accompanied alcoholic Prohibition (1920-1933), to reduce crime, America embarked on what has been called “The Punishment Imperative,” now widely acknowledged to be a social disaster for the poor and uneducated and an annual $50 billion economic fiasco for the state and city governments.
Where do we go from here? First, we must acknowledge previous failure; and then we must go on to change our criminal justice philosophy and the relevant laws to reflect common sense and current world-wide knowledge and experience.
As have all other advanced countries, we must replace punishment and isolation with crime prevention and prisoner rehabilitation as our criminal justice goals for protecting our society, with incarceration a tool to be used appropriately. And we must understand the relationship to crime of illiteracy and lack of basic education, mental health problems and lack of employment, along with gun laws that make our public the world’s most armed.
Thoughtful discussion by an aroused public and calls for action should focus on:
A) Youthful Offenders
Non-violent youthful first offenders should not be incarcerated in cells with hardened criminals, where they are raped or forced to join gangs for protection. Incarcerated in separate facilities and protected from sexual abuse by inmates and prison staff, they should be tested for their ability to read, write and count; if deficient, they should be kept in remedial class until they learn. Ideally, they should also be given vocational training so on release they can earn a living. The possibilities of earlier parole for “good performance” should be explored.
B) The Mentally Disabled
Over half of those in U.S. prisons and jails have mental health problems, many of them serious. An estimated 15% should be in
mental hospitals, or when released, not permitted to carry guns (and assassinate New York policemen).
C) Former Prisoners
Those who are released after prison should be prepared and encouraged to return to normal civilian life, without the severe limitation, restrictions and handicaps that only America requires for former inmates. Today, former prisoners are denied Pell grants for education, access to public housing, the right to vote, even the possibility of enlisting in the armed forces, and their prior records make future employment difficult. Unlike other countries, we unwittingly encourage them to return to a life of crime.
D) Hardened Criminals
Repeat career criminals who have demonstrated their inability to take part in normal society should be isolated in prison, for our benefit if not for theirs.
E) Supervision of Police and Prisons
Armed and violent criminals are a menace to our society and a life-threatening challenge to police who must deal with them. No one should under-estimate the courage and heroism of those who, for our protection, put themselves in harm’s way. But there are ground rules.
“The deep-seated culture of violence directed against adolescents” (reported by the U.S. Attorney about New York’s Rikers Island),
the vicious and unprovoked beatings of prisoners by gangs of guards in Los Angeles County jails, (F.B.I. reports describe the level of violence and brutality there as “astonishing”); New York’s “stop and frisk” practices, which until recently stopped young Black and Hispanic men without provocation, demanded they empty their pockets and, if marijuana was found, charged them with the serious crime of “public display of narcotics”—all are examples of abusive police power that must be examined, reported, reconsidered and reformed.
F) Police and the Community
It is in everyone’s best interests to have a comfortable working relationship between the police and the community—based on mutual understanding, trust and respect. Lack of public safety on inner city streets and in schools—and attention to the horrendously high rate of Black-on-Black homicide—must be addressed openly. The problems are obvious, but free, open and continuing communication between the police and elected public officials, clergy, educators and local organization leaders is the place to start.
G) Public Defenders
More effective legal defense provisions and legal aid should be made available to help the poor in their self-defense battle against established authorities.
H) Special Narcotics Courts
Some observers believe that narcotics crime should be dealt with by special courts and procedures, and that distinctions should be maintained between marijuana (increasingly legalized) and hard
drugs like heroin and cocaine. This merits investigation and public discussion.
I) Rethink State Grand Jury Systems
The Grand Jury System appears to work well on the Federal level but much less well on the State, where local prosecutors—working closely with the police and often over-protective of them—have undue influence. This April, Wisconsin passed the nation’s first law requiring a team of at least two investigations from an outside agency to lead reviews of deaths due to police killings, and a public report must be made if criminal charges are not filed. Other states are following suit.
Conclusion:
i) Prevention of crime and ii) the successful rehabilitation of former prisoners are the goals of the criminal justice systems in all other advanced countries, where certainty of punishment rather than severity is advocated, and where long isolation is less for punishment than to protect the public from those likely to be violent. Their success is manifest in their lower crime rates and very much lower prisoner recidivism rates, fewer broken homes and fewer socially-devastated communities.
Not rocket science, but common sense is what we require on these difficult questions, where fairness and prudence are joint concerns.
Last year only four countries accounted for nearly all executions worldwide: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. There are today more than 41,000 people serving life without parole in the U.S. compared to 59 in Australia, 41 in England and 37 in the Netherlands; and those countries are safer than we are. We must ask why.
What all other advanced nations have achieved, we can as well—if we will it.