Senate GOP Commits Felonious Partisanship

Senate Republicans yesterday blocked a proposal that would authorize a comprehensive, bipartisan evaluation of the U.S. criminal justice system. The proposal was sponsored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- one of few members of Congress to demonstrate an informed understanding of the criminal justice system. From Politico:

Invoking “states rights” and the Constitution, Senate Republicans Thursday torpedoed an ambitious plan to create a national blue ribbon bipartisan commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system and report back potential reforms in 18 months.

The 57-43 roll call – three short of the 60 supermajority needed – dramatized again how politically divided the chamber has become.

Over two years ago, we discussed on this very blog whether a congressional panel could actually accomplish meaningful policy change, or whether it would be little more than political theatre. At that time I conceded that while a National Criminal Justice Commission might turn out to be toothless, "the major benefit of Webb's bill is that it takes the politically risky step of publicly criticizing criminal justice and correctional policy... Recognition that our system is terribly broken ought to transcend political/ideological affiliation." Indeed, one of the experts who spoke at the 2008 ASC panel on politics and crime, Dr. Charles Wellford, also emphasized the need for a new National Crime Commission.

Therefore, the Republican sabotage of Webb's bill on purely partisan grounds is, in my view, far worse an outcome than the creation of a panel that results in little substantive change. Why? Because of the message it sends. Yesterday the Senate GOP told the American public in no uncertain terms that a systematic review of the U.S. criminal justice system is not important. The cynicism of this position is surpassed only by its shortsightedness. (And I can think of 2.3 million people who might disagree.)

There are three points I'd like to make in response to this news.

First, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a congressional review of the criminal justice system is "not a priority in these tight budget times." An elected official could scarcely utter a more foolish statement. It is precisely because of the tight budget times that a critical evaluation of the justice system is imperative. Every day we waste our money on ineffectual crime policy. We spend and spend and spend -- just as we have faithfully done for the last three decades -- even as the incarcerated population swells and the crime problem continues apace. So rather than upholding their fiduciary duty to the American public and critically evaluating whether we are spending wisely on crime policy, Senate Republicans ducked under the cover of states' rights and abdicated their financial responsibility. If they were financial advisers this stunt would get them fired. As politicians, it will no doubt get them reelected.

Second, we must interrogate the perpetual casting of criminal justice reform as a politically untenable position. We have discussed here many times how politically risky it is for elected officials to question crime policy, lest they be labeled "soft on crime." While this principle applies to all politicians, it is particularly true for conservatives who historically have supported "get tough" crime strategies. Yet calls for evidence-based policy reform aimed at reducing crime and alleviating mass incarceration are hardly limited to the far-left electorate. Todd Clear has said it. Jeremy Travis has said it. John Laub has said it. So why is the reform position so consistently politicized and resisted? Is the fear of appearing "soft on crime" really so threatening that politicians are content to sacrifice being Smart on Crime? Apparently so.

Third, the constitutional objections to Webb's proposal are perilously disingenuous. Senator Hutchison called the plan "an overreach of gigantic proportions." Unlike, say, the Deficit Reduction Panel? Meanwhile, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asserted that in supporting the proposal, Congress would be "absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution...We have no role [to act] unless we're violating human rights or the U.S. Constitution...." I've got some unsettling news for the Senator: The United States leads the planet in incarceration, with more than one in one hundred adults currently behind bars. Sixty percent of the 2.3 million Americans serving time are Black or Latino. Many of our toughest crime policies -- including welfare, housing, and other restrictions for ex-felons, juvenile transfer to adult court, and harsh mandatory minimum sentences -- have a drastically disproportionate impact on impoverished people of color and their children. Among ex-felons, Black men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times higher than the national average. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 17 White offenders have been executed for killing a Black victim, while 255 Black offenders have been executed for killing a White victim. The list goes on and on. If the persistent, pernicious race and class biases of the U.S. justice system do not constitute a human rights violation, I genuinely do not know what does.

Some will undoubtedly dismiss this condemnation of Senate Republicans as reflexive partisanship on my part, but the truth is that they deserve to be raked across the coals. To stand before the American people and claim that opposing a systematic, bipartisan evaluation of the spending behemoth that is the U.S. criminal justice system is the fiscally responsible (not to mention constitutionally-ordained) position is simply indefensible. If you're going to make such a painfully inept decision at taxpayers' expense, at least give us a decent excuse.

Photo credit.