Nearly three decades ago on this day, former President, Bill Clinton, enacted one of the most consequential federal involvements in law enforcement and crime control of his era. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided financial support for increased police presence, implementation of rigid penalties, and construction of additional prisons. However, many of those who played a role in its creation now view it as a grave error.
Nick Turner, head of the Vera Institute of Justice, noted that the societal perception and discussion around public safety have undergone significant shifts over the past few years. Crime rates have diminished, along with people’s perception of it, leading to increased skepticism towards a hard stance on crime, Turner posits.
Political advertisements featuring violent crimes remain common, evidenced even in this year’s presidential debate. In one such instance, former President Donald Trump brought up incidents purportedly committed by immigrants. However, the debate also brought light to the flaws in the justice system, when Vice President Harris mentioned the case of the Central Park Five.
This group of young men were found guilty of brutally assaulting a jogger in New York City back in 1989 — only to be exonerated later. The case received significant attention, even culminating in their presence at the Democratic National Convention this year.
Turner commented on the event, pointing out the grave consequences that an overly zealous system can inflict. The acknowledgment of these damages on a mainstream platform like the national convention signifies the shift in attitudes towards the criminal justice system.
Political rhetoric often veers towards toughness or leniency on crime, but the federal government only has a confined role in shaping justice policy. In reality, state and local authorities spearhead the prosecution of the majority of cases in the US.
Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, emphasizes the potency of the President’s platform. According to Stimson, a President should dedicate some time discussing the public’s right to safety, as its larger part depends on the community they inhabit.
Stimson explains that crime reached its zenith in the early 1990s and subsequently descended significantly over the next few decades. He attributes this drop to the ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach, emphasizing that it was this balance that underpinned the decline in crime rates.
The ‘carrot’ aspect entails development of alternatives to imprisonment such as drug courts and veterans’ courts, as well as financing violence prevention initiatives. Meanwhile, the ‘stick’ portion signifies holding wrongdoers to account. But Stimson adds that accountability isn’t synonymous with incarceration — most offenders, in his opinion, should not be jailed though they should indeed be accountable for their actions.
In 2018, Trump signed the First Step Act, a legislature that facilitated the early release of thousands of prison inmates. Yet, it should be noted that during this period, states enacted even more sweeping adjustments to their criminal justice systems.
Udi Ofer, a professor at Princeton University, informed his students that the United States no longer tops the list when it comes to the highest incarceration rates globally, leaving many of them astonished.
The crime rate experienced an upsurge during the pandemic, only to see a decline thereafter. Even in the face of some opposition, Ofer notes that state legislatures managed to ratify laws that have broadened access to parole and enabled judges to reassess prolonged prison sentences.
In Ofer’s view, contrary to most political rhetoric and popular consensus, these changes attest to the ongoing bipartisan advancements in criminal justice reform.
He’s meticulously analyzed numerous polls throughout the year and has discerned a recurring pattern. Thus, Ofer concludes that bipartisan progress in criminal justice reform persists, despite prevalent assumptions.
Through careful analysis and consideration, it’s clear that the conversation around and approaches to tackling crime have evolved over time, shaping not just policy but also societal attitudes towards crime and justice, on both state and federal levels.