Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 85,003
The Waning of Law Enforcement’s Influence on Politics Is Welcome
During my 20-year police career, I witnessed the law enforcement lobby’s power to skew the debate by fearmongering about drugs and criminal justice reform. The midterm elections indicated a change for the better.
Graphic didn't really help, but whaddah I know.
During my 20-year police career, I witnessed the law enforcement lobby’s power to skew the debate by fearmongering about drugs and criminal justice reform. The midterm elections indicated a change for the better.
http://www.substance.com/the-waning-of-law-enforcements-influence-on-politics-is-welcome/15600/Diane Goldstein | 11/12/14 said:The midterm elections’ impact on drug and criminal justice policy reform have generated massive media attention. Voters across the United States have clearly spoken in favor of the legalization of both medical and adult-consumption marijuana, as well as backing criminal justice reform. But we should remember that to do so, it was necessary for them to ignore widespread, well-financed and coordinated law enforcement fearmongering on these issues.
During my 20-year career as a police officer I saw firsthand how the political power of law enforcement, both here in California and nationwide, rose dramatically from the 1980s onward. Law enforcement lobbying in California drove the passage of “three strikes” and Proposition 21—one of the harshest of juvenile justice measures, notable for changing prosecutorial power by giving District Attorneys, rather than judges, the ability to certify juveniles as adults.
Criminal justice lobbying is big business, and this has blurred the proper separation of powers in the executive branch of federal, state and local government. It was once widely accepted that the mission of law enforcement was to enforce laws, not make them. But this mission evolved into crony capitalism that merely serves to protect police and prosecutorial power.
What makes this form of lobbying even more insidious is that it uses taxpayer dollars to fund laws that a significant number of statewide constituents don’t support. Taxpayers directly or indirectly support these lobbying efforts, which are paid for by money raised through membership subscriptions, union dues and training fees, as well as through salaries or public safety budgets.
It’s often a tangled web: The California Narcotics Officers Association (CNOA), for example, has a record of training cops to undermine California’s medical marijuana laws, then is free to spend the public money received for these “continuing education” classes to pay its own dedicated political lobbyist to campaign against marijuana reforms.
Let me be clear: I know that the voice of criminal justice professionals, within proper limits, is crucial in the dialogue about public safety. Yet despite those of us who stand up for change, that voice still overwhelmingly ignores Americans’ growing, justified calls for criminal justice and drug policy reform. This lack of inclusion by those inside the criminal justice “secret circle” has seen reformers introduce ballot initiatives to force legislative change.
In California alone we have hundreds of law enforcement associations. They range from traditional union-type outfits representing the bargaining interests of rank-and-file officers to much more political, widely influential organizations. The California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) and the CNOA are two examples of groups that directly represent a particular criminal justice niche in one state but align themselves with national or international organizations to broaden their influence. The CPCA, for example, is linked with the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The big Californian criminal justice organizations represented in the graph below have spent a total of almost $3 million on political lobbying in the latest legislative session (which has not yet ended):
But it’s not just the dollars spent on lobbying that influence policy and the law. A great deal of money is also spent to support or oppose political candidates or ballot initiatives. And then there are the nonfinancial political endorsements from law enforcement and public safety organizations, district attorneys, correctional officers’ unions and probation officers’ unions. These endorsements are widely sought out by candidates across the political spectrum and result in mission-shift—from enforcing the law to protecting the self-serving interests of those who work in criminal justice.
A big recent example of a criminal justice-driven political campaign was No on 47, which fought against Proposition 47, also known as the Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Ballot Initiative. The state’s voters nevertheless approved Proposition 47 last week.
The initiative enacts reforms that will improve public safety through reduced prison spending and by reallocating money to schools, victim services, mental health and drug treatment—all things that have been proven to reduce crime and recidivism more effectively than merely punishing people.
No on 47 was funded almost entirely by law enforcement and endorsed by Crime Victims United—which was seeded in the early 2000s and funded for years by the California Correctional Police Officers Association (CCPOA). Although the CCPOA has repositioned itself in the last few years and officially neither opposed nor supported Proposition 47, their supervisors unit, California Correctional Supervisors Organization Inc., stuck to its former position.
So it seems terribly hypocritical to me when organizations that routinely spend millions of our taxpayer dollars to oppose smart-on-crime policy reforms lament their loss by trying to portray themselves as victims of outside interests. This statement released last week reflects that:
Californians Against Proposition 47 is disappointed in the passage of this ballot proposition. The campaign was considerably outspent by more than 17 to one from national interests. “What is most disappointing is that the majority of the funds received by the proponents of this misleading measure were from people who do not reside in California,” said Jennifer Jacobs, spokesperson… “These tens of millions of dollars came from people who are not responsible for the day to day protection of the California people and more importantly, from people who will not have to live with the consequences of this dangerous measure.”
It’s true that the pro-47 campaign was well funded—not just by criminal justice reform foundations and organizations in California and beyond, but by many small donors, including me.
But I would like to point out to the many criminal justice organizations that went all-in on the “no campaign” that a small matter of 2,981,915 (58.5%) California voters—a resounding mandate of 58.5%—said yes to ending a system of mass incarceration that has perpetuated a failed recidivism rate of 65% for many years.
Rather than listening to the hype of the law enforcement establishment, voters intelligently looked to other states that have implemented smart-on-crime reforms, like Texas. There, the conservative think-tank Right on Crime worked with diverse coalition partners representing the political right and left. Texas was able to close down prisons with no uptick in crime, reaping both humanitarian and financial benefits. But it’s not just Texas—30 other states have also jumped on the reform bandwagon in a variety of ways, recognizing that justice is multitiered and requires not just punishment, but compassion, rehabilitation and saving lives as well.
So are we witnessing the waning of law enforcement influence and power over politics in California and nationwide? These remarkable midterm elections are one of the clearest signs I’ve seen that we are—and this change is a healthy one. There are many indications that we are heading toward a place where the political conversation is more nuanced and balanced, exploring what’s best for all stakeholders.
Increasingly, both politicians and law enforcement leaders are realizing that they have many goals in common with criminal justice and drug policy reformers: public health and safety, fairness and a justice system based not on lies but on science and best practices. The continuing retreat of law enforcement from partisan politics will help us achieve these goals.
Graphic didn't really help, but whaddah I know.
