Violent crime may be up in Minnesota … but not in Baltimore?
Something happened in Baltimore last year. The coronavirus pandemic hit, and State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that the city would no longer prosecute drug possession, prostitution, trespassing, and other minor charges, to keep people out of jail and limit the spread of the deadly virus.
And then crime went down in Baltimore. A lot.
While violent crime and homicides skyrocketed in most other big American cities last year, violent crime in Baltimore dropped 20 percent from last March to this month, property crime decreased 36 percent, and there were 13 fewer homicides compared with the previous year. This happened while 39 percent fewer people entered the city’s criminal justice system in the one-year period, and 20 percent fewer people landed in jail after Mosby’s office dismissed more than 1,400 pending cases and tossed out more than 1,400 warrants for nonviolent crimes.
So on Friday, Mosby made her temporary steps permanent. She announced that Baltimore City will continue to decline prosecution of all drug possession, prostitution, minor traffic and misdemeanor cases, and will partner with a local behavioral health service to aggressively reach out to drug users, sex workers, and people in psychiatric crisis to direct them into treatment rather than the back of a patrol car.
Would this be a universally good idea? I see no reason to think so, actually – but that doesn’t mean it’s a finding that shouldn’t be examined by academics and professionals alike. For example, I’d like to see those responsible for St. Paul and Minneapolis take this result under advisement.
And what did this allow Baltimore to do?
“The era of ‘tough on crime’ prosecutors is over in Baltimore,” Mosby said. “We have to rebuild the community’s trust in the criminal justice system and that’s what we will do, so we can focus on violent crime.” She said the policy shift will enable more prosecutors to be assigned to homicides and other major cases instead of working in misdemeanor court.
My original pointer to this result, TheCriticalMind on The Daily Kos, remarked:
Two benefits of Baltimore’s strategy that should make conservatives happy are one, the savings. And two, it allows the criminal justice system to focus on violent crimes — the crimes that actually hurt people. Americans should know, but it is a fact rarely publicized, that 40% of murders in the US go unsolved. And criminal psychologists know by study — as does any thoughtful person by instinct— that it is not the severity of the punishment that deters the criminal — but the likelihood they will be caught, convicted, and suffer the consequences of their action.
Skipping the gratuitously arrogant remark as does any thoughtful person by instinct, I followed up on this and ran across this National Institute of Justice report, based on an essay by Daniel S. Nagin, which I think can be summarized thusly:
- The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
- Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
- Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
- Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
- There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.
I haven’t reviewed the research Nagin works off of, as I haven’t the time nor expertise, but it’s certain interesting, and not congruent with conservative cant on the issue. But given staffing issues in some localities, the Baltimore approach may be well worth investigating and adopting, in various forms, in other cities.
I look forward to hearing results.
