DC’s fearmongering tough-on-crime law is a publicity stunt doomed to fail

Not even four years have passed since George Floyd’s murder spurred global outcry for racial justice and we’re already seeing a backslide in political support for equitable crime solutions. 

It’s not surprising — it’s an election year, and tough-on-crime rhetoric is again cropping up nationwide as a ploy to get votes across the political spectrum. Politicians exploit public fear of rising crime by using sensationalized media and inaccurate crime data to appear to gain public support.

It’s fearmongering and it makes no sense. Tough-on-crime tactics persist despite history and research repeatedly showing that they are ineffective and detrimental to the very communities they seek to protect. Washington D.C.’s recently passed Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024, supposedly aimed at boosting public safety with stricter responses, is a prime example. 

Secure DC will expand carjacking definitions to ease prosecution, allow police officers to review body-camera footage before writing reports, loosen prohibitions around police use of neck restraints and authorize police to collect DNA from suspects of violent crime even if not convicted. 

Secure DC will not prevent crime. Rather, it will harm D.C.’s communities of color and infringe on their civil rights, add to the problem of mass incarceration and weaken police accountability. It is another extension of post-slavery controls like the Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and convict leasing that disenfranchise Black Americans and restrict their rights and freedoms.
Black people continue to be disproportionately represented in the justice system. They are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated and experience police use of force and killings. One in three Black men will be incarcerated compared to one in 17 white men. 

To be clear, this is not because Black people are more prone to commit crimes. These racial disparities are rooted in longstanding systemic inequities in areas such as affordable housing, health care and employment, as well as policies that criminalize poverty and biased decision-making.

Secure DC will continue to reflect America’s history of criminalizing poor Black residents. Police officers will be able to declare “drug-free zones” and limit congregating if someone is “believed” to be there for drug activity. 

Drug zones have not and will not prevent drug crime. It will instead exacerbate racial bias consistent with evidence that Black men are the most frequent targets of police stops. There is no proof that increased policing and incarceration make us safer. Police pullbacks have not increased crime and punitive policing practices such as “Broken Windows” are ineffective.

Decades of research show that punitive measures such as mandatory minimums, three-strike laws and the death penalty do not deter crime. Instead, they ignore the root causes of criminal behavior such as poverty and lack of access to education and mental and physical health care. By focusing solely on punishment, we ignore long-term underlying issues and do nothing to break the cycle of crime or improve community welfare. 

In some cases, punishment can increase recidivism. Jails and prisons aren’t designed to rehabilitate and can have long-term consequences. When individuals return to their communities — and most do —  their families are torn apart, they are poorer, their physical health and mental health are deteriorating and their social networks are broken. 

Criminologist Jeremy Travis details in his book, “But They All Come Back” how barriers to employment, housing and treatment can impede someone’s return to the community and perpetuate the cycle of crime.

What will happen from Secure DC? More unnecessary arrests and incarceration of Black people and more shattered Black communities. Instead of investing in punitive measures that have repeatedly proven ineffective, counterproductive and harmful, we must prioritize investments in the social determinants of health such as education, affordable housing and community-identified resources and services that are responsive to the root causes of crime. 

Alternative approaches such as restorative justice, justice reinvestment and diversion programs have been shown to reduce recidivism by promoting rehabilitation and reparation and providing resources and services. Newer strategies also growing in promise include alternate first-response models and community violence intervention programs.

Of course, crime reduction matters. Of course, accountability matters. Of course, people’s safety and fears matter. People deserve to live in communities and own businesses without the threat of harm or violence. 

But that is not the debate. It’s about how we get there, at what costs and to whom. As a society, we can’t afford to continue down the path of punitive punishment in the name of justice. We must resist the false promise of tough-on-crime policies and instead embrace a vision of justice and prevention rooted in equitable research and evidence. That same vision promotes compassion, equity and community for everyone. 

It’s time to shift our focus from punishment to prevention; from incarceration to rehabilitation; from division to healing. Only then can we truly create safer, healthier and more just communities for all.

Cassandra Ramdath is the director of research and evaluation at the Center for Innovations in Community Safety at Georgetown Law.