GUEST COMMENTARY: Early release of offenders an incomplete reform effort

In 2012, John Van Landingham was a habitual offender serving a prison sentence of 45 years for brutally beating his wife in Benton County. Then, as now, many well-meaning voices in favor of criminal justice reform advocated for a reduction of Arkansas' prison population, arguing that releasing certain inmates would actually make Arkansas safer. Even though my predecessor objected to John Van Landingham being released on furlough, it happened anyway. Tragically, Van Landingham preyed upon and raped a mentally challenged teenage girl.

Though he is now back in prison, Van Landingham's case is a reminder that the rich and the powerful have far less need for the protection of the law than the vulnerable. Money and privilege mean that many people never experience crime. Rather, like this mentally challenged girl, the people endangered by crime are more often the vulnerable of society. To be effective, criminal justice reform must protect those who need it the most.

Cases like that of John Van Landingham should stand as warnings in the debate locally and nationally over criminal justice reform. Mercy and rehabilitation are critical in the judicial system. I am proud that Benton County is a leader in programs like drug court, veteran's court and other specialty programs that provide a necessary alternative to incarceration for eligible offenders. While efforts to truly reform criminal offenders and prepare them for a successful future outside of prison should continue, these efforts should not give way to the kind of misguided policies that released John Van Landingham back into society.

Our own history shows which policies are truly effective. Beginning in the 1980s, Congress passed tougher sentencing laws that significantly reduced our national crime rate. A study by the Brennan Center confirms that murder and other violent crime rates decreased by half between 1991 and 2016. Undeterred by this evidence, proponents of more lenient criminal justice policy claim that incarcerating serious criminals had little or no impact on our national crime rate. Rather, they claim that releasing more inmates from prison will actually make us safer. The available evidence and plain reason shows that this is an erroneous conclusion. The simple and obvious conclusion is true -- incarcerating serious criminals reduces our crime rate and makes us safer.

True criminal justice reform should focus on tackling the real cause of a high prison population -- recidivism. A nine-year study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found than 83 percent of inmates released from state prisons committed an additional crime during that nine-year period. Put simply, we have a repeat offender problem, not an incarceration problem. We should support policies that provide skills, education and support to inmates who will be released after paying their debt to society. This is the right thing to do and it will make us all safer to help people learn to thrive in society. Many faith-based groups are anxious to help with this issue and government should welcome their efforts.

I am glad that U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton understands that simply cutting the sentences of serious criminals is not the answer to our crime problem. The First Step Act currently before Congress risks going in that direction, even though it has some good components. A focus on job training, GED programs, and faith-based efforts to prepare inmates to re-enter society are worthwhile proposals that will benefit everyone. To the extent that the First Step Act does these things, it should be supported. However, it also allows for the early release of criminals that even President Obama did not see fit to release when he commuted the sentences of numerous federal inmates. As of this writing, federal inmates convicted of crimes ranging from drug trafficking, carjacking, drive-by shootings and even bank robbery would be eligible for early release under the First Step Act.

Sen. Cotton has offered needed amendments to the First Step Act that would prevent violent criminals from obtaining early release under the Act, require victims to be notified before an offender is released, and would track rearrest data for the released offenders. These are sensible proposals that would help achieve the bill's stated goal -- public safety.

Our state and federal governments should not fall into the trap of believing that simply reducing the number of inmates in our prisons equals success. The safety of our communities is the true measure of the success of any criminal justice reform measure. Ensuring safety requires both a commitment to keep serious criminals behind bars and also to invest in programs that help inmates who have served their sentences successfully re-enter society. I hope that any criminal justice reform measure will have as its goal what should be the obligation of a moral society, the protection of its people.

Commentary on 12/17/2018

Upcoming Events