Incarceration has played only a tiny role in this drop, and an important study has concluded that since 2000, the increase in incarceration has played almost no role at all. (Getty Images)
“You’ve got to stand for somethin’, or you’re gonna fall for anything!” This Mellencamp lyric made a big impression on me as a kid. A lifelong Hoosier born in one small town and raised in another, I’ve struggled for years to allow myself the space to change my mind about big questions. Silly as it might seem, the well-worn “Scarecrow” cassette tape in my mind is still the soundtrack to that struggle.
Maybe it’s not that silly. Simultaneously playing on innate hopes and fears, the call to stand for something is a powerful rallying cry. We want to fight for “right,” and we fear failing to rise to the challenge, of not measuring up. We don’t want to be indecisive, weak, or impressionable.
Most people want to be seen as principled. Alexander Hamilton is celebrated for endorsing his political nemesis because “Jefferson has beliefs. Burr has none.” And the audience isn’t fully onboard with Han Solo until he gives up his roguish ways and commits to the Rebel Alliance.
But standing up can go too far. It can tap deeply and dangerously into tribalist tendencies and calcify thinking. It causes us to rationalize — continuously revising arguments to justify a particular idea, cause, or group irrespective of our doubts or the facts.
This stubborn dedication is fine when rooting for the Hoosiers against the Boilermakers, but it’s a problem in the realm of ideas. It’s especially problematic in formulating public policy. Standing for something shouldn’t require sticking with the same policy year after year expecting a positive result despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some would say this is the definition of insanity.
Tough on crime?
Yet, this often happens when voters and policymakers talk about crime. Tough on crime is the operative cliché. According to the Pew Research Center , most registered voters say the current criminal justice system is too soft. This isn’t a big surprise. Voters have been saying the same thing for decades , and, as you would expect in a democracy, politicians take the same view. From right (Richard Nixon) to left (Bill Clinton), candidates tell voters that in a so-and-so administration, streets will be safe because every criminal will be guaranteed hard time in prison. The implicit message is that we stand for being tough on crime lest we fall for a more compassionate approach.
Apparently, it goes unnoticed that we have been extremely tough on crime for generations. While prison population numbers are down from their peak, Indiana’s incarceration rate is still well above the national (and global) rate . Moreover, time spent in prison has increased for many years. Whatever you think of these numbers, it seems clear that we aren’t exactly mollycoddling folks on the wrong side of the law.
Perhaps more to the point, almost zero evidence exists to support the tough-on-crime stance. Even with the recent spike in violence (which is returning to pre-pandemic levels), crime has been trending downward for thirty years . Incarceration has played only a tiny role in this drop, and an important study has concluded that since 2000, the increase in incarceration has played almost no role at all . In other words, we are not standing for something when we wave the tough-on-crime flag. Instead, we’re falling for our slogans and rationalizing beliefs.
Reform over incarceration
The good news is that not everyone is being taken in. Many have led the charge for important reforms. A decade ago, state legislative leaders enacted a major criminal code reform. A few years ago, the supermajority passed juvenile justice reform, and recent efforts to grapple with the long-standing intersection of mental illness and our criminal courts are a true breath of fresh air.
Another positive sign is the recent (albeit sporadic) reluctance to pass criminal statutes and raise penalties for every problem we face. As the Interim Committee on Correction and Criminal Code will soon examine, the tendency to add new crimes and sentences has continued since the 2014 reforms. Some legislators appear to have noticed, and a few might even believe it’s counterproductive. Several criminal law bills taking an unjustified tough-on-crime approach — from enhanced sentences for habitual offenders to new varieties of reckless driving — have failed or been sharply curtailed in the last few sessions.
Here’s hoping that trend is real and will continue. There is no reason it shouldn’t. From poverty reduction measures to evidence-based community violence intervention, we know there are better ways to address crime. We only need the courage to change our minds and the willingness to try new things. Thanks in part to a fear of looking foolish, it took me a long time to come around. But, eventually, the evidence of failure became more important that the unjustified fear.
Those who won’t change and continue to preach punishment remind me of another Mellencamp lyric. Chastising the banker foreclosing on the family farm, he says, “Hey, calling it your job ol’ hoss, sure don’t make it right.”
The same can be said for business-as-usual criminal justice policy. The record shows that we can’t punish our way out of our problems. Continuing to try, or – what is worse – believing it’s your job to stand up for tough policies, doesn’t make it right. It’s just wishful thinking.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Most Popular
Comments / 0