Pubdate: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 Source: Courier-Journal, The (KY) Copyright: 2004 The Courier-Journal Contact: http://www.courier-journal.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/97 Author: Ray Larson, Special to The Courier-Journal Note: The writer, a Lexington Democrat, has been Commonwealth's Attorney in Fayette County since 1982. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) LIBERALIZING PENAL CODE COULD INCREASE CRIME THREAT In the 1960's, America's crime rate soared because we quit sending criminals to prison. It's taken law enforcement 40 years of putting violent and repeat offenders back into prison to finally bring the crime rate back down. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," wrote George Santayana, the Spanish philosopher. I fear that we in Kentucky are about to go down the same path and repeat the same horrible mistake we made in the 1960s, all because we either did not learn our lesson then, or our present criminal justice policymakers don't rank the safety and security of the public as our top priority. The Lieutenant Governor and State Office of Drug Control Policy appear to be seeking support for incarcerating fewer criminals who commit crimes because they are drug addicts. Longtime University of Kentucky law professor Robert Lawson has studied the prison population rates in Kentucky over the past 30 years and, in his opinion, we are incarcerating too many convicted criminals. Professor Lawson states that " ... some meaningful reduction in the prison population ... would begin to sound a necessary warning that there are limits beyond which the state should not go in its efforts to protect the public against crime." Should we, as a state, say that there are limits to our efforts to protect the public against crime? I hope not. But if so, whose safety is not worth protecting? Undoubtedly there will be an effort to convince the Governor and legislature to send even fewer convicted felons to prison. As it is under our present sentencing laws, very few first-time convicted felons are sent to prison in Kentucky. Especially first-time drug offenders: They are typically offered drug treatment rather than incarceration, and I can't disagree with that. However, 94 percent of the inmates in our nation's prisons are violent and repeat offenders. These violent and repeat offenders constitute that small percentage of the criminals who commit the vast majority of the crimes. Only since we have filled our prisons with these violent and repeat offenders have we begun to see a return to the lower crime rates of the early 1960s. Before any of our elected leaders make the decision to retreat from the philosophy of "protecting the public from crime," I hope they will closely examine our criminal justice history. The anti-punishment philosophy was tried before in the early 1960s, and the results were disastrous. The law-abiding public was the big loser, and paid a horrible price. In the 1960s, America was a much safer place to live. Our criminal justice history since the 1960s is a story of two eras in American life and the major changes that divide them. The first era began in 1960 and ended in the mid-to-late 1970s. It was an era during which the criminal justice policymakers increasingly questioned the wisdom and morality of punishing criminals by incarceration. Throughout this period, crime policy was driven by the notion that "society" was somehow responsible for an individual's criminal conduct, not the individual. Addressing the root causes of crime was the best strategy, they thought. Solving the problems of unemployment, poor education and inadequate diet was seen as the most effective strategy. During this time, the criminal justice system relied less on punishment and protecting the public from dangerous felons by incarceration, and more on social programs designed to alleviate these "causes" of crime and rehabilitate the "sick"criminal. In 1960: Just under 3.4 million crimes were reported in America. The chance of being a crime victim was 1 in 53. Just over 290,000 violent crimes were reported in America. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 622. By 1970, the world of relative safety had gone. By 1970, violent crime had increased by more than 250 percent. Throughout the '70s criminal justice policy continued to be driven by the anti-punishment philosophy. In 1970: The chance of being a crime victim increased to 1 in 25 (A person was more than twice as likely to be a crime victim than in 1960.) The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 276. (A person was more than twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than in 1960.) America in 1980 was an even more dangerous place to live. Since 1960, America had become better educated, better fed and better housed, but a far more dangerous place to live. In spite of that progress, in every year since 1960 there had been a steady and dramatic growth in the crime rate in America. By 1980, based on the crime rates at that time, the National Institute of Justice projected that five out of every six 12-year-olds would be victims of a violent crime in their lifetimes. The fear of crime made people alter their lives. Social order had practically collapsed, thanks to the increasing crime rate. In 1980, there were 13.4 million crimes reported (meaning there were almost four times more crimes than in 1960) In 1980, there were 1.35 million violent crimes reported (which means there were more than four times the number of violent crimes than in 1960) In 1980: 1 out of every 10 crimes was violent. The chance of being the victim of a violent crime was 1 in 168. (The chances of being a crime victim were four times greater than in 1960.) During the 1980s, the public was finally fed up with crime. They began to speak out about their fears. Crime victims rights groups were formed to protest the treatment of victims by the criminal justice system. The public demanded protection from crime and criminals. Public safety was their top concern. State legislatures not only listened - they responded. Criminal justice policies began to change in response to the public's anger over the soft social program approach to violent criminal behavior. "Get-tough" crime bills that imposed mandatory prison terms for violent and persistent felony offenders were enacted all over America, and criminals were being sent to prison. The change in criminal justice policy from social programs back to punishment, incarceration and protection of law-abiding citizens from crime is what the public wanted. And it worked. The crime rate at first slowed, then finally began going down. By 1990, the public's demand that they be protected from crime, and that public safety be government's top priority, had been heard loud and clear by state legislatures across America. The new get-tough reforms that had been enacted by state legislatures were working. By 1990, the crime rate was lower than it had been in the 1980s, and it has continued to drop ever since. From 1994 to 2003, America's violent crime rate dropped 33.5 percent. What should today's criminal justice policymakers learn from our history since 1960s? The lessons are clear: The public wants to be protected from crime and criminals; Incarceration works to reduce crime, and that is what the public wants. The data can lead to no other conclusions than: When the incarceration rate is up, the crime rate goes down, and when the incarceration rate is down, the crime rate goes up. Our history has shown that if we hope to restore our nation and state to the level of public safety, security and protection from crime that we once enjoyed, we must continue to emphasize incarceration as punishment for crime, and violent and repeat criminals should continue to be singled out for long prison terms. Of course, we want all criminals - whether they are the violent and repeat offenders who go to prison, or the first offenders who don't - to be rehabilitated and become good citizens and contributors to our communities when they return to society. Moreover, it goes without saying that everyone hopes they take advantage of the drug treatment and job training offered both in our institutions and out. But make no mistake: The safety and security of our law-abiding citizens must always come first. The lessons of our criminal justice history are unmistakable. The public wants to live as safely as possible. They expect criminals to be punished for violating our laws. They expect our government to treat their safety as its top concern. Our history has shown that when dealing with those individuals who choose to violate our laws, leniency has resulted in unrelenting increases in crime. Punishment has served to lower crime rates. Those who would eliminate punishment and incarceration as a consequence for criminal behavior must bear the enormous moral burden of the injuries, deaths and losses of those who will become the new victims of the criminals they choose to leave on our streets. The writer, a Lexington Democrat, has been Commonwealth's Attorney in Fayette County since 1982. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D