by Robert M. Traxler

As predicted more than three years ago in this column, the cities and states that pushed “reimagined law enforcement, reimagined policing, reimagined the judicial system, defunded the police” are now going back to the historically effective criminal justice practices and procedures.

The question to them should be, can you folks read? Can you folks bother to read a book on criminal justice? Every few generations we go through this Kabuki dance as we did in the 1960s and 1970s: The belief that crime is a social problem created by our criminal nation and not the criminal’s fault returned with the expectation that the outcome would be favorable this time. It is not, no surprise.

A few truths in the criminal justice system that have remained constant for longer than statistics have been kept in the “modern era” (at least since 1829 when the Brits formed the Metropolitan Police in London in a part of the city called Scotland Yard, to a lesser extent in 1798 the Marine Police Force on the River Thames kept records that were spotty at best) proved police patrolling, security lighting, apprehending and incarcerating criminals reduced crime.

Criminals commit crimes, and do so mostly within five miles of home; thus, the early release of convicted criminals back into their communities sentenced mostly law-abiding folks to become victims of crime. The historical fact that criminals commit a number of crimes before being rearrested makes mostly lesser affluent neighborhoods a dangerous place and hurts the very folks the defund the police movement argues they are protecting.

This action does not pass the common sense test, but the folks who wish to reimagine policing are into symbolism over substance — wishing something to be true or ideally it should be true will not make it so.

In the bad old days of high crime, we had the revolving door system of corrections; a life sentence meant around 7 years, 10 years meant approximately two. It was so bad, federal minimum sentences and guidance on release on probation were eventually mandated.

The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was instituted to set standards for training and college courses for law enforcement subjects, nonexistent before LEAA became the law in 1968. Before LEAA, a police officer in many jurisdictions received only 20 hours of training, 12 of which could be on the job.  

Why we do not learn from history about social justice programs that just do not work is puzzling; European cities and nations that legalized or decriminalized drugs have returned to the old drug policies as crime soared and drug use increased, despite social programs that promised the opposite. 

In an ideal world we would not have crime and would not need police, courts or correction facilities. We do not have an ideal world and will never have one.

I often think of the words of a Department of Justice prosecutor in a robbery/murder case we investigated. In his closing statement he told the jury “… the defendants have been described as under-privileged poor African Americans whom society failed (the victim was also an African American). Let there be no doubt in your minds these defendants are just plain ornery.” All three were convicted.

We have and will always have “just plain ornery” people; not a politically correct statement, but it is true and will always be true. It is no surprise that we are swinging back to treating criminals as criminals and not victims. It is time we advocate for victims and their families, more than criminals. My opinion.