The Public Safety Myth
Rachael Rollins
Aug 29, 2019
Law enforcement’s old guard claims that policing low-level crime protects communities. That’s not just wrong; it’s dangerous.
For
time immemorial, we have been told that our communities are safer with
each criminal that our local law enforcement locks up—often for
low-level offenses like drug possession, shoplifting, or loitering.
The
problem with this narrative is that it’s largely false, predicated on a
pervasive and pernicious myth known as “broken windows” theory. It’s an
anecdotal, fact-free approach perpetuated by an old guard in law
enforcement who use fear to justify actions that, rather than increasing
public safety, end up creating and reifying divisions in our
communities. This approach is not the answer: “Broken windows” is, and
has always been, broken.
I am a
prosecutor who ran for office to challenge this and other myths, and the
people who have wielded them for way too long. I have seen firsthand
the devastating effect that violence and mass incarceration have on
families and communities, especially those of color, and I promised
voters that I would bring transformational change to the criminal
justice system.
This
change has included a reinvestment strategy within my office to utilize
our limited resources to focus on violent crime and homicides, both
solved and unsolved. It includes an unprecedented community engagement
effort that works collaboratively with external partners, including the
public school system and law enforcement, to address the root causes of
criminal behavior. My challenge—our challenge—must be overcome
collaboratively. And I will use my position and office with great
intention and passion. Our work is urgent.
And I am
working with urgency to fulfill those promises I made to the community.
For example, my office has moved away from cash bail and set policy to
sharply limit use of pretrial detention. We have published a list of 15
offenses, such as drug possession and driving without a valid license,
for which even if the police make an arrest, the office will generally
decline to prosecute the case criminally—often seeking restitution,
treatment, or consequences other than incarceration instead. And I am
not alone. There is a strong and growing movement to elect prosecutors
and sheriffs across the country who are willing to make these bold
changes.
In Suffolk
County, our primary law enforcement partner, the Boston Police
Department, has achieved nearly historical lows in arrests while also
reducing crime. These simultaneous accomplishments speak to the
department’s commitment to policies that prioritize the well-being of
the communities they serve. And our county’s elected sheriff has
implemented promising treatment and rehabilitation programs at our jail
and house of corrections—programs that pick up the pieces where our
public health and education systems and every other safety net have
failed. But even the successes we’ve seen in Boston still present
opportunities for new approaches to criminal justice.
The issues
that I speak of are larger than any single jurisdiction. Mass
incarceration is not just a set of local or national policy choices; it
is a style of politics that prosecutors like me are seeking to disrupt.
Unsurprisingly, the old guard and their powerful political allies are
fighting back—often with the assistance of an unquestioning or
sensationalist media—to preserve the decades-old structures of power and
privilege that benefit them.
In
Chicago, when State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announced that her office would
no longer charge shoplifting cases involving under $1,000 as felonies,
Kevin Graham, the head of the city’s Fraternal Order of Police, attacked her publicly,
saying: “We need to have a prosecutor who is going to charge people
when they commit a crime. If there’s no charges and nobody goes to jail,
then obviously the law doesn’t mean anything.”
In
Baltimore, after State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that her
office would no longer prosecute marijuana possession offenses, Gary
Tuggle, the interim police commissioner at that time, instructed his
officers to continue making arrests and explained that he felt marijuana possession drives violent crime.
When
Dallas District Attorney John Creuzot said he would stop prosecuting
low-level theft and other offenses, Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted that Creuzot “stokes crime.”
I’ve felt this pushback at home, too. Michael Leary, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (BPPA), recently said, without any evidence, that as a result of prosecutorial reforms, “Crime will go up. Shootings will occur.”
The data
has not borne this out. In fact, the Boston Police Department’s own
data shows that, so far in 2019, serious crime in the city is down by
approximately 8 percent compared with the same period last year.
The old
guard insists that criminal justice is a zero sum game, as if remedying
systemic injustices, including racial and economic unfairness, requires a
corresponding decrease in public safety. For example, Art Acevedo, the
Houston police chief who also
leads the Major Cities Chiefs Association, accused prosecutors like us
of “going so far that we’re putting the criminal and their interest in
front of the victim’s interest.” The
hegemony of the old guard relies upon false binaries—pitting efficiency
against fairness, safety against justice, supposed heroes against
alleged villains. But make no mistake: This is not a battle between
safety and justice; it is a battle between two competing visions of
public safety.
Despite
the old guard’s view that deprioritizing low-level order-maintenance
offenses is an affront to victims, it is their theory of public safety
that leaves victims—especially victims of the most serious violent
offenses—without recourse. As FBI data shows,
roughly 40 percent of the nation’s murders, and over half of sexual
assaults, went unsolved in 2017. For example, in Houston, police only
cleared 34 percent of violent crimes, including just 51 percent of
murders and 39 percent of rapes. In other cities, law enforcement’s
failure to address and hold people accountable for the most serious
crimes is even more pronounced. In 2017, the Phoenix Police Department
cleared 6.7 percent of reported rapes.
In Baltimore, the city has seen almost one killing per day.
Meanwhile, homicide clearance rates remain low. As Mosby said when she
announced that she would no longer prosecute marijuana possession, “No
one who is serious about public safety can honestly say that spending
resources to jail people for marijuana use is a smart way to use our
limited time and money. … If you ask that mom whose son was killed where
she would rather us spend our time and our attention—on solving that
murder, or prosecuting marijuana laws—it’s a no-brainer.”
Like
Mosby, I believe in prioritizing the offenses that cause serious
physical harm or death rather than misspending our limited resources on
low-level offenses. Murders, shootings, and sexual assaults should be
our highest priority; offenses like drug possession, loitering, and
driving on a suspended license should not.
I also
believe that incarceration should be a tool of last resort. Often people
commit low-level offenses because they are struggling with mental
illness, housing and food insecurity, poverty, or substance use
disorder. These people need treatment, a helping hand, and stability in
their lives. Jails provide none of these things. Jails separate
families; cause people to lose their homes and jobs; and confine people
to dehumanizing, violent, and chaotic spaces. Jails provide little in
the way of meaningful treatment and rehabilitation. They further
traumatize already traumatized people. They make people worse rather
than better. That means people often leave incarceration less stable and
more likely to re-engage in criminal activity. The better approach for
most offenses is to provide people with treatment and other services
when necessary, and to hold people accountable while keeping them in our
communities, through community service, restitution, and restorative
justice programs.
The old
guard depicts our efforts to move past their decades-long obsession with
hyper-enforcement and harsh prosecution for even low-level offenses
like marijuana possession as “soft on crime” and a threat to public
safety. But nothing is softer on crime, or more dangerous, than their
failure to address violent crime. Prioritizing violent crime and
funneling resources to prevention and intervention programs isn’t just
the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do. The most effective
way to address most problematic behaviors is to treat people humanely
and help them to heal, while devoting our resources to identifying and
holding accountable the people who commit serious violent offenses and
too often face no consequences at all. That’s what will make us all
safer.
Justice is
not at odds with public safety, and reform-minded prosecutors are not
the enemy of police officers. Although the leadership in many police
departments across the country have expressed hesitancy or outright
disdain for progressive policies, I know that this movement cannot
succeed without buy-in from police officers on the ground. This is the
reason why I have spoken with the president of the BPPA several times
and addressed a meeting of union representatives to explain my
progressive policies and hear their concerns. I welcome feedback and
constructive criticism. I will embrace evolution and adaptation when
warranted. I will not, however, tolerate the rejection of indisputable
data or blind acceptance of the status quo. The costs of remaining
complacent are too high.
Anyone who
is ready to commit to the change we so desperately need is an ally. The
new guard cannot be limited to prosecutors. Our team is growing, and we
welcome new recruits.
Rachael Rollins is the district attorney of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
