U.S. Attorney General William Barr recently spoke before the Fraternal Order of Police. While he spent some time talking about how difficult the job of the police is and what an important role they play — all true — he took the opportunity to lob unfounded criticism at some large-city district attorneys whom he labels “social justice” reformers, such as Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, John Creuzot in Dallas and Dan Satterberg in Seattle.
Barr describes these duly elected district attorneys as anti-law-enforcement DAs who let criminals off the hook and refuse to enforce the law. He characterizes them as demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety. To quote Barr, chief law enforcement officer in the nation: “Once in office, they have been announcing their refusal to enforce broad swaths of the criminal law. Some are refusing to prosecute various theft cases and drug cases. And when they do deign to charge a criminal suspect, they are frequently seeking sentences that are pathetically lenient. So, these cities are headed back to the days of revolving door justice. The results will be predictable. More crime; more victims.”
Barr’s description of what progressive, reform-minded district attorneys are doing is wrong. Moreover, his admiration for tough-on-crime policies is profoundly misguided. I have studied progressive district attorneys and their role in criminal justice reform for several years. I can report firsthand that their primary goal is to enhance public safety by implementing smart, evidence-based policies for reducing crime, recidivism and victimization. To say these prosecutors are anti-law-enforcement and that their policies will result in more crime and more victimization simply shows how ill-informed Barr is regarding crime and criminal justice.
Indeed, many prosecutors are electing to not prosecute cases involving small amounts of marijuana and in some cases minor theft. Others are developing pretrial diversion programs for individuals involved in lower level crimes and those with mental illness and substance abuse problems. Progressive DAs are also developing policies that keep offenders out of jail awaiting disposition of their cases.
There is nothing in these policies that will increase crime and victimization. On the contrary, scientific evidence clearly shows that these will enhance public safety.
Since the facts about progressive DAs do not support Barr’s characterizations, I’m left with the possibility that this is just another attempt to politicize criminal justice policy. Here’s the translation, and just in time for 2020: Progressive DAs are soft on crime; Trump and Barr are tough on crime.
Tough-on-crime gave us the world’s largest and most expensive criminal justice system, the hallmark of which is the highest rate of correctional control (prison, jail, probation and parole) and a $1 trillion price tag. We have prosecuted a war on drugs that any casual observer would admit has been a profound failure and extraordinarily expensive (another $1 trillion).
We continue to use the criminal justice system as the dumping ground for our inability or refusal to adequately fund public health. Today, 50% of those confined in the justice system are mentally ill, 80% have a substance-abuse disorder and the majority has some cognitive dysfunction. The recidivism rate measures how many offenders are rearrested after they have been through the criminal justice system at least once. Today, the recidivism rate is 85%.
What these vilified district attorneys are trying to do is implement smart-on-crime policies that avoid or reduce some of the negative effects of criminal prosecution and pretrial detention, and link individuals to important services such as mental-health treatment. They are true visionaries who are relying on valid scientific evidence to enhance public safety and save money.
We tried tough on crime back in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. We know how well that worked. Mr. Barr, wake up. It’s 2019.