From appliedrc@igc.apc.org Thu Feb 23 17:55:04 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:32:34 -0800 From: Applied Research CenterTo: newman@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Rapsheet 3 Fighting Points in the Crime Bill Francis Calpotura On September 13, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Rbiggest, toughest, smartestS Crime Bill in U.S. history. The $30.2 billion, six-year bill represents a mammoth law enforcement reserve with which to escalate a punishment strategy aimed at poor people, immigrants, and people of color as we enter a new century. Clinton and Attorney General Reno have successfully loosened the ^scal belt of 17,000 police departments around the country, and have accelerated the already frantic pace of prison construction. Far from being pronounced terminally ill, a progressive agenda on crime and punishment can ^nd some resuscitation. I believe that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provides us with openings to ^ght the good ^ght. The challenge for the Campaign and other community-based initiatives, committed to shifting the debate and re-structuring priorities on how this country deals with crime, is to identify ^ghting points in this Crime Bill that will move us closer to a strategy that expands prevention and rehabilitation, institutionalizes community-directed priorities, builds police accountability, and fosters development based on justice and equality. WeUre ^ghting a 15-year trend towards stricter sentencing laws, more prisons, more police and more border patrol. The only result we can account for is a 300% increase in prison population (now more than 1.2 million) and a fear of crime that is at an all-time high. There are more Black men in prison than enrolled in college, twenty-four Latinos behind bars for every one with a B.A. degree, and a doubling in the number of women in prison in less than ten years. In California, twenty-six prisons were built in the last decade against only one new institution of higher learning, with similar trends in other states. The Crime Bill, in the next few years, affords community organizations with several arenas for strategically intervening to change fundamentally the course of crime and punishment in this country. WhatUs in BillUs Bill? Aside from the well-publicized provision banning 19 types of assault weapons (while exempting 650 others) and some weak attempts at curtailing low-level white collar crime, ClintonUs bill contains 33 major provisions. Its primary items are as follows: Law Enforcement (Total Allocation: $ 13,451,000,000) * Puts 100,000 more police on the streets to carry out Community Policing. Increases the total number of law enforcement of^cers by 20% in 5 years, while granting only up to 75% of total hiring cost, with local jurisdictions to match the rest. * Beefs up Border Patrol by more than 4,000 of^cers in four years. Mandates a national Criminal Alien Tracking Center. Prisons (Total Allocation: $ 9,850,000,000) * Awards grants to states for new prison construction with 50% of total funds as incentive to each state. States must abide by Rtruth in sentencingS provisions which require person convicted of violent crimes serve no less than 85% of prison term. Grants up to 75% of total construction cost with states coming up with the rest. * Reimburses states for cost of incarcerating criminal Rillegal aliensS. Enhances penalties for sex offenders, with mandatory HIV testing of some criminal defendants. Prevention (Total Allocation: $ 6,903,000,000) * Allows grants to local governments for education, substance abuse prevention, recreation and job programs to prevent crime through the Local Partnership Act and also through the Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program, both requiring public hearings to determine use of funds. * Allocates more than $ 1.6 billion to combat violence against women, through tougher sentencing laws, research and data collection projects, and programs to reduce sexual assault against women and create safe havens for victims of violence. A provision buried inside this mammoth Crime Bill is entitled RPolice Pattern or PracticeS. It empowers the Attorney General to penalize police departments for engaging in a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. The same provision also mandates the AG to collect data on the use of excessive force by law enforcement of^cers. Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead The Crime Bill grab bag has some thing in it to offend almost everyone. Yet for community organizations committed to shifting the debate on crime and safety to a more humane, just and equitable framework, the Bill offers a number of ^ghting points to engage local governments and law enforcement agencies on the local level. For now, I will highlight a few opportunities. Fight for Community-Directed Policing. On average, each law enforcement agency in the country will receive close to $ 55 million in the next six years -- a windfall which local police departments havenUt experienced before. These resources are intended to expand and institutionalize the practice of community policing with applicant agencies needing to show Rcommunity participationS and involvement. The current practice, at best, uses community organizations (and only those supportive of police) as window dressing. Fights around standards of involvement and participation: key ones are described in CCSPAUs Home Run Strategy under RPromote Community-Directed PolicingS that stress prevention and problem-solving over arrests, community oversight, and mechanisms for police to take direction from the community. Fight for Standards of Prevention. Both the Local Partnership Act and the new Block Grant Programs, giving wider local government discretion than other Crime Bill prevention programs, allow organizations to ^ght to direct funds away from police-sponsored programs (i.e. DARE, PAL, etc.) toward real community-run projects. Sharpening the criteria for what constitutes prevention is key to this endeavor. CCSPA frames a number of these standards: a preventive measure should support families; promote multicultural understanding; employ community residents; be accessible to all members of the community (young and old, men and women); and be available year-round. Both Crime Bill provisions demand public hearings which lend themselves to fostering debate on these standards. Fight to Expose Pattern or Practice of Abuse. Until this Crime Bill was passed, there was no provision to document the practice of police violence and expose the breadth and scope of selective enforcement. Residents in communities of color and poor communities have known this practice all too well. From our research, most people are afraid of ^ling complaints at the local Civilian Review Board or Internal Affairs, lack con^dence in successful follow-up by law enforcement agencies, or donUt know that such a thing exists. On the Federal level, the Department of Justice only counts whatUs reported by complainants and does not search for patterns or trends of misconduct. What is not counted, doesnUt exist! Community advocates can use the new pattern or practice provision to expose selective enforcement, and ^ght for action from the Justice Department. This can lead to numerous strategies for civilian oversight and calls for accountability from local to national levels. These R^ghting pointsS are not meant to exhaust all possibilities. What they do provide, and what organizations ^ghting for change need to examine, are entry points in various levels of the correctional-industrial complex where communities most affected by the current state of affairs can engage. How to translate this strategy to the BillUs provisions around prisons demands our attention. The Campaign would like to hear from you about your (or anyone elseUs) ideas on this. ************************************************************************* From Issue #6 of RapSheet, September 1994 Trends in Police Work, Law Enforcement Reform, & Community Control Prepared by the Applied Research Center for the Campaign for Community Safety & Police Accountability *************************************************************************