I’m generally pretty skeptical about creating commissions or advisory bodies to solve big problems. Usually that’s just a sign that the that the people who can actually solve a problem have no interest in it (see Bowles-Simpson, a commission supposedly supported by both parties which created solutions for the debt “problem” that were too dramatic for anybody to support and just ended up being kicked aside while other solutions were considered).
Since I generally am not big on commissions without power to do much more than make recommendations, I was surprised to see one response to the Aaron Swartz debacle was support for the National Criminal Justice Commission act. This act died in the last Congress despite bipartisan support–it had enough votes to pass both houses of congress but was killed by a filibuster in the Senate; without sufficient lobbying power behind it there was nothing to really force it through (the ACLU are good people and supported the act, but they don’t exactly have as much sway in DC as Halliburton).
The NCJC would be an independent group which would examine the justice system in all 50 states and make recommendations. Naturally the states would not be obligated to adopt these recommendations. Could this act do anything? Despite my general skepticism as outlined above, I think there is some value to a commission with the heft of the federal government behind it examining the criminal justice system. There are a few reasons we might expect an advisory commission here to work better than it would in a situation like for the national debt issue. First, this is a relatively low-profile issue with apparently technocratic solutions. Second, the lobby which would resist reform here may actually be combatable.
On the first point, the issues relating to criminal justice and prison policy are actually not germane to most people’s lives. Although prosecutors and elected officials have run for office for years on the the argument that crime is something that affects people’s lives every day, that is generally simply not the case. And in any case, violent crime and murders have been declining for several decades now, so paranoia should hopefully be declining alongside it. Additionally, many of the changes that would be suggested are relatively minor and technocratic changes that don’t really have any apparent possible impact on public safety. One example is already in place in Washington and Colorado: reducing penalties for non-violent drug offenders (although this obviously did not come in the form of a good-government measure).
Another common suggestion which is already also being implemented in Colorado is to end reincarceration for non-violent parole violations. There is simply no reason to throw people back in prison for something that would not get them thrown in prison in the first place just because they are on parole. In fact, it’s probably likely to result in the worst outcomes possible, increased possibility of recidivism, increased risk of violence on prison where another and lighter punishment would serve the purpose of preventing further criminal acts (which is really the point of parole) just fine. These types of small tweaks are unlikely to be brought up by legislators on their own (State legislators are generally part time and most concerned about local projects vs. larger efficiency projects).
The second reason this commission might have better luck than something like Bowles-Simpson is that the prison lobby does not have the built in weight that other lobbies might have. While any industry that relies heavily on government contracts for its livelihood will fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn’t happen, lobbies like defense contractors or oil companies have a built-in community of civilian support in the form of military towns and oil cities. While the interests of these communities might not be precisely aligned with the industries doing business there, the companies can at least count on the legislators and citizens in those areas to advocate for additional spending. By contrast prison towns appear to be declining somewhat. Additionally, they are fairly small and generally politically disenfranchised.
Some small changes in prison and justice policy could make a real difference. It’s because these changes are relatively minor and do not affect many people in their day to day life that I believe a commission could make a real difference.
Colorado Prisons Blog 