‘Tough-on-crime’ policies are back in some places that had reimagined criminal justice • Missouri Independent
'Tough-on-crime' policies are back in some places that had reimagined criminal justice • Missouri Independent Missouri Independent
sdgtalks
Facing a Shift: US Lawmakers Reconsider Criminal Justice Reforms
Fueled by public outrage over the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and other high-profile incidents of police violence, a seismic shift swept across the United States shortly afterward, with a wave of initiatives aimed at reining in police powers and reimagining criminal-legal systems.
Yet less than half a decade later, political leaders from coast to coast are embracing a return to “tough-on-crime” policies, often undoing the changes of recent years.
Resurgence of Tough-on-Crime Policies
This resurgence is most palpable in the nation’s major urban centers, traditionally bastions of progressive politics. San Francisco voters earlier this month approved ballot initiatives that would require drug screenings for welfare recipients and would loosen restrictions on police operations. The District of Columbia, too, has pivoted toward a harder stance on crime, with its mayor signing into law a sweeping package that toughens penalties for gun crimes, establishes drug-free zones, and allows police to collect DNA from suspects before a conviction.
Local and state leaders in blue and red states — including California, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont — also have looked to toughen their approaches to crime and public safety in a variety of ways. Lawmakers have proposed bills that would stiffen retail theft charges, re-criminalize certain hard street drugs, keep more suspects in jail in lieu of bail, and expand police powers.
Many are passing with bipartisan support.
Policymakers are responding to public concerns over rising crime rates and heightened fear and anger due to a surge in offenses such as carjackings and retail theft. To some criminal justice experts, the legislative actions represent more of a partial rollback of progressive criminal justice changes rather than a complete return to past punitive policies.
“The issue for most people isn’t whether something is up or down by 10%. It’s that they are seeing randomness and brazenness, and getting a sense of lawlessness,” said Adam Gelb, the president and CEO of the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. “Some of what we’re seeing is more like … shaving off the edges of some of the policies that felt too lenient.”
The percentage of Americans who think the United States is “not tough enough” on crime grew for the first time in 30 years, according to a Gallup poll released in November. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they believe the criminal-legal system is too soft, up from 41% in 2020.
While national crime data is notoriously difficult to track and understand, violent crime across the United States decreased in 2022 — dropping to about the same level as before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the FBI’s annual crime report. Property crimes rose during the same period. Crime data compiled by the Council on Criminal Justice also suggests that most types of crime are reverting toward pre-pandemic levels.
Reforms and Concerns
Georgia’s legislature earlier this year passed a bill that would add 30 additional felony and misdemeanor crimes to the state’s list of bail-restricted offenses, meaning that people accused of those crimes would be required to post cash bail. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp hasn’t said whether he will sign the bill.
Last week, the Tennessee Senate passed a bill that would prohibit local governments from altering police traffic stop policies. If signed into law, it would overturn a Memphis city ordinance that bans pretextual traffic stops, which is when police use minor traffic infractions such as broken taillights as grounds to investigate motorists for more serious crimes.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat who leads the first state to decriminalize drugs, announced in early March she plans to sign legislation that would redefine the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, such as fentanyl or methamphetamine, as a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months in jail.
The bill also would allow law enforcement to take action to prevent the distribution and use of controlled substances in public areas, such as parks or sidewalks.
Still, critics of the new legislation argue that re-criminalizing drug use would disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities and further burden Oregon’s already overwhelmed criminal justice system. There are more than 2,800 people in the state currently unrepresented in court, and about half are facing misdemeanor charges, according to the Oregon Judicial Department’s dashboard.
Some of these concerns are why Oregon state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat, voted against the new legislation
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
- SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
- Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
- Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence against and torture of children
- Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all
- Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
- Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of homicides per 100,000 population
- Indicator for Target 16.2: Number of children subjected to violence, exploitation, and abuse
- Indicator for Target 16.3: Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism
- Indicator for Target 16.7: Proportions of positions in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions, by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere | Number of homicides per 100,000 population |
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence against and torture of children | Number of children subjected to violence, exploitation, and abuse |
| Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all | Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism | |
| Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels | Proportions of positions in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions, by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups |
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: missouriindependent.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
