Kamala Harris approaches crime with wisdom

Her experiences as a prosecutor led to her 2009 book, Clever against crimeIn it, she called the debate between tough and soft crime measures a “false choice” and instead advocated evidence-based strategies to reduce crime – strategies that take into account both the enforcement and prevention sides of the equation. “Serious and violent criminals must be locked up,” she wrote. “But to shake the crime pyramid, we cannot stop there.” The focus should instead be on effectiveness, which requires “punishment, opportunities for redress, education and support for victims.”

For example, as a district attorney in the 2000s, Harris developed a program called Back on Track that gave low-level offenders a second chance if they agreed to plead guilty, participate in a job training program, and attend regular court appearances to ensure they were held accountable. If they were successful for 12 months, their cases were dismissed. Offenders who did not complete the program were convicted and punished for their crimes.

According to Harris' book, the recidivism rate among participants who completed the program was only 10 percent, compared to 50 percent for other offenders in her county. She pointed to the benefits in terms of improving public safety, breaking the cycle of crime for offenders, and reducing costs, which at the time were $43,000 per inmate per year at the county jail. Harris launched other innovative programs to reduce crime and prison sentences, such as specialty courts, a gang intervention initiative, and inmate reintegration programs.

Harris' ideas were influential beyond the Bay Area, too. In 2013, when I served as U.S. Attorney in Michigan, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted many of the ideas Harris described in her book, even using the name “Smart on Crime.” The strategy was based on Harris' holistic view that crime can be reduced through law enforcement and prevention. Like Harris, the Justice Department used evidence-based practices, such as working with state and local law enforcement to pool resources, using data to identify crime hotspots for increased patrols, experimenting with alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, and bringing charges that carried minimum sentences to prioritize the most dangerous drug dealers and violent criminals. In its three years of operation, the Smart on Crime program resulted in a 13 percent reduction in the federal prison population.

Another example comes from Detroit, where one of Smart on Crime's initiatives was a gang intervention program called Ceasefire. Law enforcement and community partners held conference calls that offenders had to attend in order to be eligible for parole. During these meetings, offenders were given both carrots and sticks to pressure them to improve. Some of the carrots and sticks included: offering participants job training and drug treatment opportunities. And as for the stick, offenders were also shown their criminal records and informed of the penalties for continued armed criminal behavior. Those who went on to commit violent crimes involving firearms were given priority for speedy prosecution. Neighborhoods that participated in the program saw a significant decrease in gang violence.

While the Trump administration eliminated the Smart on Crime strategy, many of its elements have been restored by the Biden-Harris team. And while it can be difficult to pinpoint the cause of the decline in crime rates, violent crime has been steadily declining in recent years despite perceptions to the contrary.

Some politicians beat their chests and demand law and order without regard for the distribution of resources or the consequences for society. But senseless calls for a tough crackdown on crime will not solve the complex problems of our criminal justice system. Instead, we need a leader who is creative, innovative and strategic – in a word, smart.