Popular ‘get tough’ approach to crime misguided

Tuesday, May 7, 1996

Rush to convict overlooks basic Constitutional rightsBy Brian J.
Hicks

In "Lenient criminal justice system in need of reform" (May 6),
A. Aanand Patel displays an incredible lack of understanding and
respect for the constitutional due process rights of criminal
defendants, as well as a failure to comprehend the realities of the
American criminal justice system.

While it’s true that the United States has tremendous crime
problems, the "get tough on crime" approach that has been so
popular with politicians has proved itself to be an utter failure
over the last two decades. Mandatory sentencing, repeat-offender
statutes and the federalization of traditionally state crimes have
failed to have an appreciable impact on crime rates.

Patel advocates allowing juries to convict a defendant with a
10-2 vote. He seems to be under the impression that every criminal
defendant to ever reach trial can hire a "dream team" of lawyers to
confound jurors and reach a mistrial. The fact of the matter is
that in the 10 percent of cases that go to trial (the other 90
percent are plea-bargained), juries ARE able to reach verdicts in
the majority of cases. In those few cases where hung juries
actually occur, it is not clear that a 10-2 requirement would lead
to a greater conviction rate of truly guilty defendants.

If one is bothered by the amount of money spent on prisons as
compared to that spent on education, the one, two and three-strike
proposals Patel seems fond of should really be frightening. Why
spend money on elementary schools and universities when we can lock
up third-rate thieves for 25 to life as California’s law presently
does? Is it any wonder that some judges (by no means all ­
remember, most of them were appointed by Republican governors) have
chosen to disregard previous strikes? To lock up a third-time
burglar for such a disproportionate length of time borders on the
absurd.

Tougher laws? More and more activities have been criminalized in
the last two decades, and longer prison sentences have been placed
on even the most petty crimes (e.g., selling marijuana). Effective?
I think not.

Lenient judges? Prior to 1992, Republican presidents stacked the
Supreme Court and federal courts with "get tough" judges who have
displayed an incredible willingness to create the very "good faith"
exceptions that Patel thinks are so beneficial to society. I sleep
easier knowing that my car could be searched at any moment, and a
"good faith" exception to the warrantless search would allow
anything found to be admissible in court. Cops are rarely
effectively sanctioned for violating rights of people during
searches.

Additionally, criminal cases "dismissed" for technicalities do
not vanish ­ most of them are refiled, and convictions are
obtained in many of them. Ernesto Miranda, of the famous Miranda
ruling, was retried and convicted after the Supreme Court reversed
his original conviction. He did not get off "scot-free."

This country has wrongfully killed no less than 24 people who
were proven to be innocent following their executions. Such
bloodlust as Patel advocates, which includes rushing people off to
death row, limiting appeals and conducting "30 executions every
week" would undoubtedly multiply this figure many times within
months. I certainly would not sleep any easier knowing we might be
killing the innocent along with the guilty.

The criminal justice system has problems, but blindly "getting
tough" on defendants and the convicted will not have an appreciable
effect on crime in this country. Indeed, the consequences are
likely to be far worse. There are no easy answers to our crime
problem, but rushing blindly into wantonly depriving people of
their fundamental constitutional rights is certainly not one of
them.

Hicks is a third-year political science and philosophy
student.