The Wrong Kind of Déjà vu

Locally and nationwide, many jurisdictions are experiencing violent crime rates which approach or exceed the high rates of 35 years ago. No one wants to see those days again.

The costs of violence fell disproportionately on young people who were killed or maimed. The costs also fell disproportionately on their families. I remember how it looked inside the crime scene tape. I remember family notifications which crushed the lives of mothers and fathers and other family members. Too many young people saw the madness as inescapable and wrongly concluded that their only alternative was to become a victim or be willing to victimize others.

Over the last few years, America has been engaged in questioning the fairness as well as the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and the policies and practices of policing in particular. These questions are legitimate. And, not surprisingly, they are often accompanied by a sense of anger and urgency.

But, that anger and urgent desire for change can sometimes result in adopting quick-fix, flawed initiatives and these have contributed to the current rise in crime.

For example, to address real and perceived unfairness, some jurisdictions choose to avoid making arrests and to forgo prosecuting misdemeanor crimes, including some violent crimes. Some have turned the processes of arrest, booking and release into a rapidly revolving door in a misguided attempt to promote equity and fairness. (And, possibly, to achieve short-term cost savings as well.)

As a result, high-rate offenders repeatedly enter and exit before they experience anything to interrupt their accustomed criminal activities. Consequently, we see individual safety, community well-being and small, local businesses suffer.

Some jurisdictions ignore crimes committed by the mentally ill, the homeless or those who are suffering from addiction. They often do so out of a misguided sense of charity. This not only encourages additional offenses and victimization within and among these vulnerable populations, it also limits their exposure to treatment alternatives available through the courts.

To carry this idea further, some courts and legislatures have virtually legalized personal possession of seriously dangerous drugs. This contributes to the record rate of opioid / fentanyl /meth overdose deaths at a time when prosecution is becoming a common entry point to treatment.

Too often, we arrest people for violent felonies and note their long record of convictions for similar offenses. This does not mean that we should overfill our prisons or view incarceration as the only answer. It does mean that those who repeatedly reoffend for serious offenses are sending a clear signal which we ignore at our peril.

In the name of tolerance and good intentions, we stretch the boundaries of what is acceptable. We ignore the "broken windows." The overall result ? Boundaries set by the criminal law become weaker and less credible. Offenses become routine and consequences for committing offenses become remote. Eventually, “anything goes.”

In the area of police reform, we have sought to adopt policies aimed at limiting police misconduct and unfair practices. These are clearly commendable intentions.

But, too often, these intentions have degraded into calls to defund / abolish police departments; universal “cop-shaming” (e.g. “there are no good cops”); treating police as an exclusive source of racism and issuing directives which cause confusion and misdirection. These viewpoints can give rise to an official, policy of “de-policing” as well as discretionary decisions by officers to hesitate or not engage.

A prime example is recent legislation introduced by the Washington State Legislature (HB 1310) widely viewed as creating a barrier/disincentive for police intervention even when such intervention is widely regarded as necessary. The law raised the criteria / legal threshold for police intervention seeming to substitute "probable cause" criteria for traditional criteria of "reasonable suspicion." (It reportedly will undergo revision by the legislature.)

In pursuit of police reform, we have too often misinterpreted what communities want. Communities do not want less policing. They do not want weaker policing. They want BETTER policing. They want safety achieved through ethical police practices and public partnerships.

So, how do we move forward? How do we correct and re-start ? Let’s begin by recognizing the true importance of what we are doing. Let’s commit to undergo all the difficulties and all of the costs which are necessary to construct a better, fairer, ethically-driven criminal justice system. Yes, reform is needed. But poorly-crafted, quick-fix reform is not.

Let’s not do this “fast and cheap.” Let’s not settle for half-baked reform which comes with a second course of crime-filled side-effects.

- Paul A. Pastor, Sheriff of Pierce County Washington, Retired, ?PhD (Yale University)