(Part 8)
What does it mean to be “tough on crime”?
As we moved away from the “crimequake” of the ’90s and watched the juvenile crime rate fall, the fear that once pushed us off the slippery slope and into a lock ’em up frenzy was replaced by evidence-informed policymaking that emphasizes community-based solutions. The calm after the quake has afforded us the opportunity to rethink what works in crime and punishment while simultaneously exposing hardliners who push a tough on crime mantra as shallow thinkers.
The irony of hardliners is that they pride themselves on being fiscally conservative while promoting public safety, but in reality they compromise public safety and at an enormous cost to the taxpayer.
But history has also taught us that the politics of fear can quash what we know works when hardliners sensationalize violent acts of kids, or when there are tremors of crime that may or may not precede another crimequake.
After Jerome Miller closed the Massachusetts training schools in the early ’70s, other states like Utah and Missouri followed suit. Studies proved the Massachusetts Experiment safer and cost effective, so it made sense for Utah to close its 450-bed training school when facing a lawsuit alleging abuse inside the school. Missouri followed suit and closed its largest secured facility. Both Utah and Missouri repurposed its monies to invest in evidence-informed community programming, and later studies showed both systems yielded better results for kids.
[For more of this story, written by Steven Teske, go to http://jjie.org/2017/06/14/bot...system-works-better/]
Comments (1)