Ethan Orr: Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences to make Arizona safer

— Mehmet Murat Ildan

The violence and uncertainty in 2020 has left many of us afraid. Among the many awful outcomes of the pandemic and the shutdown was the largest year-to-year increase in homicides in over 50 years. People are afraid and justifiably so.

In some ways, that fear — that perception of lawlessness — resembles the feeling of many Americans living in big cities during the ’70s and ’80s.

But fear rarely results in rational policy, and many of our nation’s darkest atrocities were born of fear. We need a solution to reverse what has become a pandemic of crime. And the best solution is one that learns from the lessons and mistakes of our past.

Responding to the last major dramatic increase in crime in 1994, then President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This act encapsulated a conversation about who could be tougher on crime and meaner to criminals.

In many ways those criminal justice policies could be perceived as unthinking, uncaring and enacted out of crisis instead of wisdom. But it is easier to see the mistakes of others with the benefit of historical hindsight. Understanding those mistakes allows us to learn from them.

The laws passed in the 1990s included mandatory minimums and truth in sentencing. Arizona passed truth in sentencing laws in 1993 that mandated that prisoners serve at least 85% of their sentence, essentially eliminating parole.

Not surprisingly, according to Pew Research Reports, the average length of time spent by people in prison increased over 36% since 1990. State expenditures on incarceration have risen from $16.9 billion in 1990 to a staggering $60.9 billion in 2018. Some of the recent racial tension was born in the criminalization and enforcement of those policies. This is not to say that we shouldn’t enforce crime laws, but that we should enforce them in a thinking, reflective and meaningful way.

In order to understand crime we must understand causality. Tucson historically has one of the highest property crime rates in the country, but over 40% of property crime is tied to drug use and addiction.

Tucson does not have a problem with property crime; Tucson has a problem with drugs and addiction, which leads to increased property crime. Through the creation and funding of drug and mental health courts, we not only help victims of drug abuse, we reduce theft and burglary in our neighborhoods as well.

Former Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall created the first drug court in Tucson in 2011. By shifting the focus to the community drug problem, the drug court program in Pima County has saved taxpayers over $ 1 million a year in avoided prison costs and prevented many of us from becoming victims of property crime. Drug courts reduce recidivism by over 20%.

When Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of New York, the city was in crime chaos. Instead of simply being tougher on crime, he also got smarter on crime. The mayor got smarter on crime by introducing geo-based policing and the broken windows theory of enforcement, addressing little problems before they become big problems. The broken window theory has recently been criticized, but no one doubts that it helped make New York safe and livable, especially in predominantly low-income areas.

Arizona needs something that works effectively. A proposed remedy to the criminal justice error of the past is in the works right now. Just last week, Rep. Walter Blackman (R-Snowflake) and Rep. Joel John (R-Buckeye) introduced HB 2673 in the Arizona House, legislation giving judges greater discretion in sentencing. I support the elimination of mandatory minimum and truth in sentencing laws not only because they can be ineffective and inhumane, potentially trapping people in the criminal justice system, but also because they violate the principle of separation of powers.

It is the discretion of the judiciary to interpret laws and decide sentencing. Common sense tells us that a judge hearing a case has more ability to ensure that the punishment fits the crime for an individual person better than a legislative body enacting narrow sentencing guidelines for everyone, regardless of that individual’s circumstances, repentance or personal restoration.

Looking at the policy mistakes of the 1990s, it is easy to judge politicians making laws based on emotion and fear and not rational policy. Instead of judging them, let’s learn from their mistakes. In response to rising crime rates and lawlessness let’s respond with wisdom, compassion for the victim, and common sense. Crime and criminal behavior must be punished, but if we must punish let us punish in a way that makes society safer.

We need to clearly differentiate between violent and non-violent criminals; some people are evil and dangerous and should be locked up. Others need restorative justice, the opportunity to pay for their crime, make amends to their victim, and find a pathway out of criminal behavior.

We can do this by supporting drug and mental health courts, advocating for the passage of Arizona HB 2673 and similar bills, ensuring that victims voices will always be heard throughout the criminal justice process, and defending people’s rights to protect themselves and be safe.

In terms of criminal justice policy, let’s study what works and enact common sense reform that makes all of us safer.