OPINION

DANA D. KELLEY: Bipartisan, bilateral reform

There are basically two types of criminals: those who are violent, and those who aren't.

Our legal system has struggled to differentiate between the two in meaningful ways. More often than not, the courts have wound up giving nonviolent offenders too much prison time, and vice versa. The result? Too many Americans are behind bars for the wrong reasons.

A misguided matrix of mandatory sentencing laws have brought the harshest penalties down not on the most dangerous criminals, but on small-time, nonviolent drug offenders.

This week, President Trump threw his support behind prison reform legislation that rights some of those critical wrongs.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who co-authored the new measure that offers a workable compromise between earlier House and Senate versions, saw sentencing injustices at work regularly during his time as a U.S. attorney.

One example: A young father with no criminal record got a 55-year mandatory sentence for selling three dime bags of marijuana to a paid police informant. Had he mugged someone instead of making a $30 drug deal, he might have gotten two years (the average penalty for assault). Had he simply killed the informant, he would have faced an average federal murder sentence of only 15 years.

That's not only crazy on its face, but completely counterproductive to improving public safety.

If we think of crimes in bilateral terms, with violence as the differentiator, a lot of common-sense solutions become clearer.

Young people commit the most crimes. Research has shown that reducing recidivism for violent crime is very difficult to do; such criminals typically continue their violence even while in prison.

Nonviolent criminals can and do grow out of their bad habits--but it's harder, and more expensive, in prison. That's where they commonly learn even more bad habits. During lengthy incarcerations, whatever social structure might have provided support for them also suffers and often disintegrates.

If it's important that the punishment should fit the crime, and most people agree that it is, a parallel truth is that the sentencing apparatus should not do more harm than good.

Prison is an expensive proposition; surely there are other ways to spend the same dollars on convicted non-violent criminals that produce better results. Violent criminals are another matter. They are dangerous to society, so keeping them off the streets protects the public.

It's arguable that violence, more than any other single factor, should determine prison sentencing. Incarceration, by and large, should apply mainly to criminals who harm other people. It's not "soft on crime" to want to help young people recover from bad, stupid and selfish--but nonviolent--decisions and actions.

Indeed, just as society as a whole suffers from high petty-crime rates, it benefits when petty criminals, the ones most capable of being reformed, return to society as productive taxpayers.

The economic upswing is significant: Inmates who embrace a fresh start go from being a ward of the state (prison cost: $21,000 annually) to a working citizen (average per capita income: $27,000).

Multiplied over an average life span, that adds up quickly to a far better community and national outcome.

Accosted by Acosta

The profession of journalism has plenty of threats from without. Anyone with an Internet connection can blog and bloviate under the pretense of "reporting" or "investigating." All the more reason to quickly sanction any credentialed reporters who tarnish the industry from within.

If you haven't watched the video of CNN's correspondent Jim Acosta appearing to push a White House intern's arm away as she reached for his microphone during the press conference the day after the election, you should.

It's an unprecedented display of literally heavy-handed haughtiness by a so-called journalist seeking to make himself the story.

Press-credentialed reporters are invited to ask questions at White House briefings and news conferences. Acosta has long been in the habit of making declarations and accusations.

His first "question" when called on by the president was to state that the caravan in Mexico was "not an invasion."

"I want to challenge you," he said.

Who elected Acosta to anything? you might be wondering, as likely was the president himself. No reporter has any standing to lecture the president.

A White House press pass is a privilege that comes with rules and responsibilities, which Acosta ignored and violated.

Acosta abused his position, and in doing so shamed his profession. Trump--seldom a master of understatement--used the minimal adjective "rude."

Instead of more sternly reprimanding him in the name of journalistic professionalism and White House decorum, CNN filed a lawsuit to challenge his banishment.

With 50 other reporters still peppering the president with questions, the First Amendment remains vitally intact and solidly preserved. Only a hyperinflated ego like Acosta's could interpret the personal consequences of his individual misbehavior as an attack on everyone else's freedoms.

It's debatable whether Acosta and his self-serving ilk are enemies of the people, but their attitude is clearly an insult to good journalism.

------------v------------

Dana D. Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.

Editorial on 11/16/2018

Upcoming Events