Evidence doesn't support old adage of being tough on crime • Indiana Capital Chronicle

“You've got to stand up for something or you'll fall for anything!” This Mellencamp lyric resonated with me as a kid. I'm a Hoosier born in one small town and raised in another, and I've struggled for years to give myself the space to change my mind on big issues. As silly as it sounds, the well-worn “Scarecrow” cassette in my head is still the soundtrack to that struggle.

Maybe it's not so silly after all. The call to stand up for something plays on innate hopes and fears at the same time and is a powerful battle cry. We want to fight for what is “right” and are afraid of not being up to the challenge, of not meeting the demands. We don't want to be indecisive, weak or easily influenced.

Most people want to be seen as principled. Alexander Hamilton is celebrated for supporting his political nemesis because “Jefferson has convictions. Burr has none.” And the audience is not fully on Han Solo's side until he gives up his villainy and joins the Rebel Alliance.

But standing up can go too far. It can become deeply and dangerously tribal and hardened in thinking. It causes us to rationalize – we constantly rework our arguments to justify a particular idea, cause or group, regardless of our doubts or the facts.

This stubborn devotion 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 the formulation of public policy. Those who stand for something shouldn't stick with the same policy year after year and expect a positive outcome when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some would say that's the definition of insanity.

Tough on crime?

And yet, that is exactly what often happens when voters and politicians talk about crime. Tough on crime is the common cliché. According to the Pew Research Centermost registered voters say the current criminal justice system is too lax. This is not a big surprise. Voters have been saying the same thing for for decadesand as you would expect in a democracy, politicians are taking this view. From the right (Richard Nixon) to the left (Bill Clinton), candidates tell voters that under a particular administration, the streets will be safe because every criminal is guaranteed a harsh prison sentence. The implicit message is that we support a tough line on crime so we don't fall for a more compassionate approach.

What people don't seem to realize is that we have been extremely tough on crime for generations. Although the prison population has dropped from its peak, the incarceration rate in Indiana is still significantly above the national (and global) rate. In addition, the time in prison has increased for many years. Whatever one thinks of these numbers, it seems clear that we are not exactly coddling people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Perhaps more importantly, there is almost no evidence to support the tough stance on crime. Even with the recent rise in violence (the return to pre-pandemic levels), crime in a downward trend for thirty years. Incarceration has played only a small role in this decline, and one major study concluded that the increase in incarceration since 2000 almost no roleIn other words, when we raise the flag of being tough on crime, we stand for nothing. Instead, we fall for our slogans and justify our beliefs.

Reform instead of imprisonment

The good news is that not everyone is falling for it. Many have pushed for important reforms. A decade ago, state legislatures passed comprehensive criminal justice reform. A few years ago, a two-thirds majority passed juvenile justice reform, and recent efforts to address the long-standing interface between mental illness and our criminal courts are a breath of fresh air.

Another positive sign is the recent (if sporadic) reluctance to pass criminal legislation and increase penalties for every problem we face. As the Interim Committee on Sentencing and Criminal Code will soon examine, the trend of creating new crimes and penalties has continued since the 2014 reforms. Some lawmakers seem to have noticed this, and some may even consider it counterproductive. Several criminal bills that take an unjustifiably harsh approach to crime – from increased penalties for habitual offenders to new variations on reckless driving – have failed or been severely curtailed in recent sessions.

We hope this trend is real and will continue. There's no reason why it shouldn't. From anti-poverty policies to evidence-based interventions to address community violence, we know there are better ways to fight crime. We just need the courage to change our minds and the willingness to try new things. Partly out of fear of looking stupid, it took me a long time to make the move. But eventually, the evidence of failure became more important than the unfounded fear.

Those who don't change and continue to preach punishment remind me of another Mellencamp lyric. He chides the banker who forecloses on the family farm, saying, “Hey, if you call it your job, old buddy, you sure ain't doing it right.”

The same goes for criminal justice policy, which continues as before. History shows that we cannot solve our problems through punishment. Continuing to try, or worse, believing that it is our job to advocate for tough policies, does not make it right. It is pure wishful thinking.