On Sept. 21, Commissioner Jordan Johnson announced that the city of Augusta will be joining the Stepping Up Initiative, a nationwide endeavor that “commits to lowering the number of individuals with mental health issues booked into our jails and instead reroute people to the critical services that they need to live a whole life,” according to Johnson.
I’m excited about this move and think it is a great first step (pun intended) in the right direction for our community. However, I expect controversy to ensue from any changes made or proposed due to this initiative.
MORE: Opinion: Give City Your Two Cents at Community Budget Forums
Augustans will have to grapple with complex issues of crime and punishment. It is a subject with many sides worth discussing from all angles. But for me, the issue really boils down to one question: Is it better to be tough on crime or smart on crime?
Sounds like a trick question, doesn’t it? Presented with the option, who wouldn’t choose the “smart” approach to an issue?
But many people have a very simplistic and emotional reaction to crime. They see incidents in black and white: someone had a clear choice between doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and they chose wrong. That person should then be punished, and their punishment will deter them — and others — from committing future crimes.
[adrotate banner=”13″]
This is a common reaction, especially in more conservative-leaning areas. Many elected officials wear the description “tough on crime” as a badge of honor.
But is the “tough” approach really the best approach? Does it actually prevent crime? Does it really make our communities safer?
One assumption the tough-on-crime mentality makes is that committing a crime is always a crystal-clear moral decision. It simplifies the numerous and complex causes of criminal behavior. It ignores contributing factors like poverty, abuse, mental illness and addiction. It makes no effort to understand why people commit crime. It only condemns and punishes them.
But isn’t understanding a problem the first step towards solving it? If you understand what causes someone to commit a crime, isn’t the crime easier to prevent? For instance, studies show that abusive domestic relationships often result in extreme violence or death. So, wouldn’t it be smart as a community to promote programs that give domestic abuse victims access to safe shelter?
Another assumption “toughies” make (sorry, but this is easier than typing “tough-on-crime advocates” every other paragraph) is that our laws and society are mostly just and reasonable. They believe that our laws are all there for a good reason and that they are applied equally to everyone. I’m sure we would all like that to be true, but it’s just not the case.
[adrotate banner=”19″]
For example, tens of thousands of Americans are currently incarcerated for nonviolent marijuana offenses. This is despite evidence that marijuana use is not generally harmful, especially in contrast to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. The application of marijuana laws is also unjust. According to the ACLU, black Americans are 3.73 times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana, despite roughly equal usage rates.
Unfortunately, toughies rarely spend time questioning the rationality and effectiveness of criminal laws, preferring instead to impugn those who run afoul of them. For decades, many have championed the catastrophic “War on Drugs,” a trillion-dollar failed effort to punish the drug abuse out of Americans.
The last — and possibly most harmful — assumption toughies make is that harsh punishment (specifically incarceration) is an effective way to deter crime and recidivism. But just think about it: don’t most criminals know before they commit crimes that they can be punished for them? Does that deter them?
A person in the depths of an opioid addiction is not going to be swayed by the prospect of arrest — addiction is stronger than fear. In fact, addicts know that using drugs could result in a far worse fate— death, and even that doesn’t stop them. So what is the fear of prison supposed to accomplish?
Then there’s incarceration itself. Many toughies believe that the best thing for society is to sentence criminals to hard time (or the death penalty, but that would take its own column to discuss). Does this make sense in some cases? Sure. I think we can all agree that certain crimes should be punishable by life sentences and that certain criminals cannot be rehabilitated. No one’s clamoring for the release of serial killers or terrorists.
[adrotate banner=”54″]
However, this does not represent the vast majority of incarcerated people. The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates that as many as 65% of inmates suffer from substance abuse disorder. And the American Psychological Association reports that at least half of prisoners have mental health concerns, with 10% to 25% suffering from severe mental illness.
Is prison really the most productive environment for people with mental health or substance abuse problems? Think of it this way: if you take a person away from any possible support structure for several months or years and then drop them back into society without any money or job prospects, do you think they are more or less likely to become a repeat offender?
MORE: Citizens Encouraged to Build Their Own Budget at Community Engagement Forum
Is it really the best choice to separate people from their families and jobs for problems they could receive treatment for? Splitting up families can have devastating consequences. And keeping that many people out of the job force can’t be good for our local economy, either.
So let’s “step up,” Augusta, and support changes to our judicial system that actually prevent crimes, instead of just reacting to them. Let’s advocate to get our fellow citizens out of prison and into treatment. We’ll all be the better for it.
Marcus Plumlee is a Columnist for The Augusta Press. Reach him at mplumlee87@icloud.com.
[adrotate banner=”51″]
