Democrats have moved so far leftward that now Joe Biden is apologizing for a 1994 crime bill that, yes, actually cut crime.
Now the media is fact-checking Biden’s apology — a fate Biden could have avoided if he had done the right thing by bragging about the bill’s successes.
Well-intentioned people across the political spectrum have worked in recent years to reduce the incidence of over-incarceration. The reform idea du jour is that nonviolent offenders should spend less time behind bars and more in rehabilitative environments. It’s a good idea. The Left, though, absurdly takes the idea further, arguing in effect that prisoners are somehow victims and that even repeat offenders should serve substantially less time.
Hence Biden’s convoluted groveling. Even though he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that largely produced the final version of the 1994 federal crime bill, he is now saying the bill really wasn’t his responsibility. He’s also saying the bill didn’t really increase incarceration all that much, and that to the extent it did, it was then-President Bill Clinton’s fault.
So, to review: It wasn’t his fault, but it didn’t do what they say it did, but when it did the allegedly bad things they say it did, well, remember, it wasn’t his fault.
Yeah, right.
Biden’s pretzel-like explanations aside, here’s the reality: The 1994 crime bill contained some unnecessary measures, but to the extent that it did result in increased incarceration, its result was exactly as intended, which was to reduce violent crime both directly in the federal system and also, indirectly, by spurring states to crack down on violent offenders.
There were four key provisions relating to new and necessary incarceration. First, the law provided funds for states to hire more police. Second, it helped states finance more prison space. Third, it encouraged states to make violent offenders serve 85% of their sentences. Fourth, it enacted a “three strikes” provision, for federal crimes only, that mandated life imprisonment for a violent offense that followed two earlier convictions, state or federal, for violent felonies.
The three-strikes provision now has a bad odor, because too many states enacted copycat measures that included nonviolent, lower-level offenses. But the federal provision was well targeted at violent recidivists. I know because I helped write it.
In a 1993 referendum, Washington State adopted a well-designed three-strikes law. My then-boss, U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., was a former local, state, and federal prosecutor. For two years already, he had been pushing a federal three-strikes bill. The very day after the Washington referendum overwhelmingly passed, he entered the office and directed us to re-tweak and re-introduce his own federal bill, carefully aimed only at violent recidivists. As his press aide, I quickly saw via talk radio and newspaper columns how much support grew, indeed erupted, when word of our bill got out.
Livingston introduced the bill, which quickly earned huge bipartisan support in the House. But then New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, still a House member while the Democrats had the majority, insisted that the House Judiciary Committee wouldn’t advance the bill unless he was listed as its original co-author.
Seeing the growing popularity of tough-on-crime measures, Clinton suddenly wanted a larger bill of his own. With Biden as point man in the Senate, that more comprehensive bill, incorporating the Livingston-Schumer three-strikes proposal along with numerous other measures, passed easily into law.
And it worked.
Rates of violent crime in the United States had risen from 158.1 per 100,000 people in 1961 to 758.2 per 100,000 in 1991 — an astonishing 379% increase in just three decades. After the federal crime bill, plus the adoption nationwide of smart policing practices embraced by, among others, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, violent crime rates began dropping precipitously. By 2011, the rate per 100,000 was down to 387.1 — in other words, nearly cut in half.
The decline in violent crime coincided exactly with the rise of tough-on-crime policies. Part of getting tough on crime involves putting violent offenders in prison. If they aren’t on the streets, they can’t rob, rape, and murder. It’s that simple.
Thus, a large part of the rise in incarceration rates was necessary. One can and should argue for alternative sentencing, less incarceration, and more rehabilitation for one-time or nonviolent offenders, yet still fight hard to keep violent recidivists behind bars.
Biden is right that if states went overboard in incarcerating, rather than requiring community service for, nonviolent offenders, it wasn’t the 1994 federal crime bill that did it. But to the extent that that bill did increase incarceration, it did so wisely and well. Joe Biden should be proud: He helped package Bob Livingston’s idea in a way effective at keeping American communities safer.
