Going Soft on Crime

Soft on crime? Next to being called a politician, that was every candidate's worst fear this season. The desperate need to talk tough gave rise to a clamor for three-strikes-you're-out laws and other stringent penalties. But do those measures have anything to do with what works in the real world? A street-level look suggests that the popular wisdom has it backward:

Sneakers, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, gang member, comes by his nickname honestly. "It's 'cause I'm so fast," he explains. "Real fast." Especially after he snatches a purse. Or burglarizes a home. Or pulls a trigger. Sometimes, though, Sneakers isn't quite fast enough. He has already served three years for two robberies. Now 21, Sneakers is a two-time loser on the prowl in a three-strike state. But he's not worried that a third felony could put him away for life. "The law don't make no difference to me because I ain't gonna get caught," he says. "I mean, if I really thought I was gonna get caught, I wouldn't commit a crime in the first place, now would I?"

The same fate could have befallen Iman Reed. At age 11, Iman liked to pick fights on the streets of Wichita, Kansas, making him a prime target for a revenge shooting. Then his mom enrolled him in a Big Brother program, which paired him with a police detective. Five years later, Iman is pulling down A's and B's in school, and has his sights set on a law degree. Reflecting back, he concludes, "If I wasn't in the program, I'd be in one of those gangs." Or dead.

Sneakers and Iman personify what's really at stake in the debate over America's No. 1 concern. Sneakers is the kind of person politicians have in mind when they claim that they can deter punks from committing a third felony by threatening to lock 'em up for good. And Iman is the sort of kid that some candidates seem to think is the recipient of "pork" when they dismiss prevention programs as a waste of money. But two new reports suggest that those politicians have it wrong. An investigative report published Oct. 24 in the Los Angeles Times documented the failure of California's three-strike law -- one of the nation's first and stiffest. The same day, the National Recreation and Park Association released a nationwide study of prevention programs, which offered compelling evidence that recreation and training can < contribute directly to declines in crime and juvenile-arrest rates. The message may be getting through. A small but growing number of mayors and judges, most of them Republicans, are breaking party ranks to say that it's prevention, not inflexible punishment, that puts a dent in crime.