By David Rogers, Contributing Columnist
Are we witnessing the diminishing influence of
tough-on-crime campaign rhetoric and the politics of fear? The election results
show a compelling shift in the attitudes of the American electorate on criminal
justice and public safety issues.
Historically, America’s political campaigns are full of
tough-on-crime rhetoric designed to make opponents look weak and tap into the
power of fear. Most famously, the Willie Horton ads in the 1988 presidential
campaign did exactly what they intended to do: make Dukakis look soft on crime
and less effective at addressing critical public safety issues.
These tough on crime political tactics don’t always have the
heavy racialized subtext of the Willie Horton ads, but they are a regular tool
in the bag of dirty campaign tricks. Yet, criminal justice and public safety
issues took a decisive turn in a different direction this election.
In California, Proposition 36, a measure that reforms
California’s three strikes mandatory minimum law, passed with over 68 percent
support.
In Oregon, about 10 candidates in swing districts were hit
with a barrage of ads that implied that scary criminals would ravage Oregon’s
communities if those candidates were elected. Every one of the candidates who
were attacked by those hit pieces won their races, which also shifted the
balance of power in the House.
Voters in Washington State and Colorado turned their backs
on the War on Drugs and decided to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana.
The election results show an electorate that is increasingly
sophisticated when it comes to assessing the validity of political scare
tactics and bluster of tough-on-crime rhetoric.
People recognize that policies promoted by tough-on-crime
posturing have brought very little benefit if not a whole lot of problems. The
public is embracing a smart-on-crime agenda, a more rational and cost effective
approach to public safety, accountability, and crime prevention.
A smart-on-crime agenda questions the efficacy of mass
incarceration and looks to invest resources in more effective approaches to
building safe communities like community policing, addiction treatment, mental
health services and programs designed to help formerly incarcerated people succeed.
Although it is important not to overstate the change that is happening, there
are multiple factors that point to a real shift in voter attitudes and the
political dynamics of criminal justice policy.
First, voters are making the connections between criminal
sentencing policy, prison expansion and state budget deficits. America has been
on a massive prison build up over the past 20 years. This has come at a
profound cost. States have been struggling with severe budget deficits cutting
education funding and life-saving programs, while prison spending is soaring.
Voters are beginning to think in terms of economic priorities.
Both statewide marijuana legalization measures were
constructed to tax the drug. The promise of increased revenue to address
challenging fiscal conditions was an explicit and compelling factor in both
campaigns.
Second, Americans are beginning to recognize that there is a
better way to fight crime than building and filling prisons. 2012 marked the
40th anniversary of the start of the War on Drugs kicked off by President
Nixon. In a Gallup poll, only 31 percent of Americans said they thought the
government was making much progress dealing with illegal drugs. Voters are
ready to try a different approach. There is recognition among the public that
just toughening sentences for addiction-driven crime does nothing to break the
cycle of use and recidivism.
Third, changing demographics is a factor. As communities of
color become a larger portion of the electorate, public safety discourse will need
to change particularly when looking at the profound racial disparity within the
criminal justice system. Status quo policies and messages will not gain much
support from voters of color.
Fourth, there is no longer a homogenous and unified law
enforcement voice endorsing and amplifying the tough-on-crime political
attacks. There is growing reflection among various law enforcement leaders and
associations about what constitutes the most effective public safety policy.
There is legitimate concern that growing prison spending under-resources more
effective local crime interventions.
Although California’s key law enforcement associations
opposed Proposition 36, several high profile district attorneys provided strong
and visible support for reforming California’s mandatory minimum law.
The landscape around criminal justice and public safety
issues is changing. We all want to live in safe communities. The question
becomes, how do we best address crime and maintain safety. Voters are
rightfully showing real dissatisfaction and skepticism with the status quo.
Are we seeing the diminishing influence of tough-on-crime
rhetoric and political tactics? Perhaps it’s too early to tell, but I think
America is ready to begin getting smart-on-crime.
Author bio: David Rogers is the executive director of
Partnership for Safety and Justice. PSJ is a statewide, nonprofit advocacy
organization dedicated to making Oregon’s approach to crime and public safety
more effective and just.
This article appears in 2012-12-07.