« Half way through 2023, is US on pace for the most executions in nearly a decade? | Main | Inartful dodgers: some thoughts on the SCOTUS acquitted conduct cert denial »
July 3, 2023
"The First Step Act is a conservative, constructive approach to strengthening public safety"
The title of this post is a line from this new Hill commentary authored by Timothy Head and David Safavian. The piece is a response, of sorts, to the various attacks on the FIRST STEP Act by some GOP Prez candidates (discussed here and here), and here are excerpts:
[O]n occasion, Congress comes to its senses to pass impactful legislation. And those moments of sensibility are often rooted in conservative principles. Take the First Step Act, for example — a criminal justice bill supported by large majorities in the House and Senate and signed into law by then-President Trump in 2018. The bill helped nonviolent prisoners earn shorter sentences through education and work, and it lowered certain mandatory minimum sentences that lacked any public safety benefit. Data shows that the bill is reducing recidivism, which makes our communities safer.
But as the political season swings into full gear, the law has become the target of criticism from those who believe that a harsh criminal justice system is more effective in reducing crime. Indeed, some have called for repeal of the legislation. This is not only ill-informed, but it is also a short-sighted mistake. Now is not the time to shy away from improving the criminal justice system; instead, we should build upon the First Step Act’s success....
The First Step Act is a conservative, constructive approach to strengthening public safety while giving those in prison a pathway to earning back the public’s trust. Indeed, we helped craft the legislation in collaboration with public safety leaders and agencies, victims’ rights organizations, stakeholders in state legislatures, and everyday Americans impacted by our criminal justice system.
And the legislation has delivered positive results — not the least of which is a far lower recidivism rate for those who benefitted from the bill. Because every instance of re-offending means another criminal case with another victim, recidivism is a key indicator of the performance of our criminal justice system. When measured by recidivism, the benefits of the First Step Act are undeniable....
The First Step Act isn’t the only reform of the justice system that has been successful. Conservatives also delivered smart but tough policies in the passage of the CARES Act in March 2020, near the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act was known primarily for its economic relief designed for individuals and small businesses affected by the shutting down of the economy. But the media has virtually ignored another aspect of the CARES Act, which helped almost 12,000 minimum security federal inmates finish their sentences in home confinement instead of in taxpayer-funded prison cells. Since its implementation, there has been an astonishingly low recidivism rate of only 0.15 percent — just 17 prisoners committed new crimes.
As conservatives, we want the best for our communities, and part of that includes helping prisoners return home as good spouses, parents, and neighbors while reducing taxpayer costs. For years, Congress has talked about reducing recidivism and restoring lives. But the successes of the First Step Act and the CARES Act underscore the importance of conservative values in shaping effective legislation that can be enacted.
Instead of trying to score cheap political points, politicians should continue working towards a more effective justice system that cuts crime, makes neighborhoods safer, and offers pathways to rehabilitation. In doing so, conservatives can continue to earn the American people’s trust for years to come.
I find efforts to brand the FIRST STEP Act as "conservative" to be quite interesting, and I am thinking the line serving as the title of this post could provide the foundation for an interesting question in coming GOP candidate debates (the first of which is slated for next month). Especially given that Prez Biden has, so far, achieved very little in the criminal justice reform space, I really would find interesting whether and how various GOP candidates (including former Prez Trump) might embrace or assail the FIRST STEP Act as a "conservative" legislative development.
Somewhat relatedly, here are a few other recent commentaries discussing federal justice reform issues and broader political dynamics:
From Forbes, "The Unnecessary Risk Of Incarcerating Minimum Security Inmates"
From The Marshall Project, "Why DeSantis Wants to Kill Trump’s Prison Reform Law"
From the Tampa Bay Times, "Here’s how Gov. DeSantis is trashing criminal justice reform"
Prior related posts:
- Florida Gov DeSantis reportedly gearing up to attack former Prez Trump for his support of FIRST STEP Act
- New GOP Prez candidate DeSantis pledges to repeal FIRST STEP Act
- Interesting criminal justice news and notes from the GOP campaign trail
July 3, 2023 at 04:14 PM | Permalink
Comments
I was going to just let this one go, but there are two things in it that finally prompted me to say something.
1. "The First Step Act is a conservative, constructive approach to...giving those in prison a pathway to earning back the public’s trust."
Only a big government headcase could think that a piece of legislation out of Washington will help criminals "earn back the public's trust." What will help them earn back trust is THEIR OWN consistently honest, law-abiding and productive behavior. They became distrusted because they were stealing, dealing drugs, etc. They'll regain trust when they stop and stay stopped. Period.
2. "...the CARES Act, which helped almost 12,000 minimum security federal inmates finish their sentences in home confinement instead of in taxpayer-funded prison cells. Since its implementation, there has been an astonishingly low recidivism rate of only 0.15 percent — just 17 prisoners committed new crimes."
Anyone who believes that only 17 out of 12,000 inmates of any description whatever have committed new crimes since their release is simply not connected to reality.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 4, 2023 12:56:12 PM
Bill - why do you consistently place all the blame on criminals and ignore needed changes that society can and should make to reduce the unnecessary negative impacts of incarceration and that will make it easier for people to reform their behavior and rejoin society? Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Jul 4, 2023 2:27:53 PM
Brett Miller --
1. "why do you consistently place all the blame on criminals..."
Because they're the ones who commit the crimes.
2. "... and ignore needed changes that society can and should make to reduce the unnecessary negative impacts of incarceration and that will make it easier for people to reform their behavior and rejoin society?"
From 1990 through 2010, the prison population exploded and crime plummeted. It is simply not the case that incarceration increases crime. Twenty years of evidence shows that it reduces crime, massively. And what people need to reform their behavior is a better conscience and more empathy for their victims -- things that neither I nor the government can supply.
I live in the same society all the rest of us do, and for all this time, I've managed to avoid stealing stuff, selling drugs and having sex with five year-old's. Believe me, it's just not that hard.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 4, 2023 4:57:31 PM
"Anyone who believes that only 17 out of 12,000 inmates of any description whatever have committed new crimes since their release is simply not connected to reality"
Bill's statement reminds one of comedian Chico Marx: “Who ya gonna to believe, me or your own eyes?” But Chico was trying to be funny.
The stats on CARES Act home confines are the stats, Bill's sarcastic incredulity notwithstanding.
For that matter, Bill complains that "I live in the same society all the rest of us do, and for all this time, I've managed to avoid stealing stuff, selling drugs and having sex with five-year-olds. Believe me, it's just not that hard." Were those offenses the totality of federal criminal offenses, Bill's claim might have traction. But how about the other 4,496+ federal crimes defined in statute and regulation?
Bill, tell us instead that "I live in the same society all the rest of us do, and for all this time, I've managed to avoid violating any federal criminal statute or criminalized regulation, or any state or local criminal statute or ordinance chargeable under the Assimilated Crimes Act, and [b]elieve me, it's just not that hard."
At least, tell us that if you can...
Posted by: Tom Root | Jul 4, 2023 10:42:41 PM
Tom Root --
If you actually believe that only 17 out of 12,000 criminals released under the CARES ACT have committed another crime, you go right ahead. And yes, that is the reported statistic. We KNOW it must be true because, ya know, statistics are never mistaken, slanted or incomplete.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
In fact, you don't believe it either, do you?
I have not read what you say are 4,498+ federal crimes you talk about (just as you haven't and no one on this blog has, so why bother with this silliness). I can tell you that I have never been charged with a crime in any jurisdiction ever.
You?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 4, 2023 11:46:05 PM
Tom Root --
You know, I thought I remembered your name from a case in DC when I was in the USAO across the Potomac River. Does the case cited at 12 F.3d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1994) mean anything to you? It's not about anything exotic you might find in the netherlands of the 4,498 federal crimes. Not a bit. Instead, it's about strictly garden variety stuff like fraud, forgery and witness tampering. If you'd like for me to supply details, I'll be happy to. Would you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 5, 2023 9:04:52 AM
Bill - I wish you would stop your judgmental, holier-than-thou attitude. Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Jul 5, 2023 1:52:28 PM
Brett Miller --
When adults of sound mind commit crime, almost always to enrich themselves at the expense of a weaker victim, they deserve judgment and they'll get it. That's why we have criminal law at all. I believe in law as preferable to the jungle. Do you?
You may mistake my conformity to what the law requires as a holier-than-thou attitude, but it's no such thing. It's simply one of the requirements of normal citizenship, and what I owe to the people around me. Still, while we're at it, I wish you would stop your everybody's-got-an-excuse attitude.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 5, 2023 3:30:51 PM
Brett Miller,
Our society needs more judgmentalism, not less.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 5, 2023 8:55:54 PM
TarlsQtr --
DING DING DING
By far the main thing that differentiates us from other living things -- many of which are bigger, stronger and faster -- is our ability to make judgments and our knowledge that making them is the foundation of civilized life.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 5, 2023 9:30:52 PM
Bill and Tarls - What you two may view as excuse-making may tend to ignore the very real effects of brain damage and neurological deficits caused at an early age that can damage an individual's potential and future life prospects. Being more compassionate and understanding in my view will lead to a healthier society in the long run as we may become more enlightened individuals and less willing to socially scorn certain individuals viewed as "undesirable". We are all capable of becoming criminals and some people may need more social support to become law abiding. Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Jul 6, 2023 11:51:27 AM
Brett Miller --
I dealt with lots and lots of criminals. There was no evidence I ever saw that any of them had "brain damage and neurological deficits caused at an early age." What was going on was lots simpler: Greed.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2023 2:44:16 PM
Mr. Otis, you wrote:
> Only a big government headcase could think that a piece of
> legislation out of Washington will help criminals "earn back the
> public's trust." What will help them earn back trust is THEIR
> OWN consistently honest, law-abiding and productive behavior.
How many decades of consistently honest, law-abiding and productive
behavior suffice? In my case, it's been 45 years so far. Plenty of
individuals and organizations trust me, but only to the extent that
the government allows them to. I think anyone who has had a perfectly
clean record for seven years since being released from prison should
have their record expunged, as they're obviously either reformed or,
as in my case, were innocent in the first place. If you like, replace
"seven years" with however long it takes for released prisoners to
have a conviction rate no higher than others the same age. Surely
someone has made a study of that?
> They became distrusted because they were stealing, dealing drugs,
> etc. They'll regain trust when they stop and stay stopped. Period.
In my case, my criminal record consists entirely of office burglaries
during the eleven days I had a specific roommate. My record is
otherwise perfectly clean before and since. I had never even been
sent to the school principal's office.
Turn it around: If police and prosecutors were to start being
perfectly honest today, for how long should the public continue to
treat them as dishonest? Does 45 years sound reasonable to you?
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Jul 6, 2023 10:08:27 PM