a bipartisan plan to overhaul our criminal justice system appears increasingly liable to reverse the most astonishing, unexpected and welcome societal improvement in recent decades: the dramatic reduction in American crime rates following tough-on-crime policies instituted in the wake of disastrous liberal experimentations from the mid-1960s.

Tweet

At conservatism's core lies a reverence for wisdom accumulated through hard human experience.  Its central logic pleads that we build incrementally upon proven policies and safeguard timeless principles, rather than dismantle them as unfashionable anachronisms under the illusion that human nature somehow changes or that things are "different" today. 

Or to paraphrase Edmund Burke, conservatism implores that we internalize the lessons of history so as not to tragically repeat them. 

It is therefore particularly regrettable when otherwise conservative leaders temporarily lose sight of those principles in upending successful social policies that should remain in place. 

Overly broad Congressional efforts in the name of criminal justice reform perhaps highlight that habitual human inclination to forfeit hard-won societal gains and very recent lessons of history better than any other current movement.  Specifically, a bipartisan plan to overhaul our criminal justice system appears increasingly liable to reverse the most astonishing, unexpected and welcome societal improvement in recent decades:  the dramatic reduction in American crime rates following tough-on-crime policies instituted in the wake of disastrous liberal experimentations from the mid-1960s. 

The fact that so many otherwise reliably conservative Senators have joined that movement exacerbates that potential tragedy. 

Fortunately, a cadre of steadfast conservatives led by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R - Arkansas) stands athwart that movement commanding, "Stop!" 

At issue is legislation advocated by Barack Obama to substantially transform America's criminal justice system, including relaxation of mandatory minimum sentences that have proven instrumental in reducing crime, particularly murder, in recent years.  Mandatory minimum sentences were part of a broader get-tough-on-crime movement beginning in the 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s under such leaders as conservative theorist James Q. Wilson and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani that responded to the conflagration of crime following three decades of liberalized approaches beginning in the 1960s. 

Here's the primary basis for the success of mandatory minimums and other "broken windows" policing techniques.  Because a remarkably small portion of the population commits an overwhelming majority of its crimes, we discovered that incarcerating criminals for even seemingly insignificant offenses resulted in a dramatic reduction in crime by incapacitating them from committing additional crimes.  The same person who jumps a subway gate or picks a pocket is disproportionately likely to commit such crimes as armed robbery and murder.  Accordingly, removing petty criminals for even small amounts of time had a multiplier effect by preventing them from committing more serious crimes out on the streets. 

Prior to implementation of those tougher criminal justice policies, Americans were largely resigned to crime rate increases with no foreseeable end.  Instead, over the ensuing 25 years America's crime rate has plummeted including a murder rate that has been cut in half. 

That astonishing success came as a surprise to most observers, particularly those who maligned tougher criminal justice policies as inhumane.  The truth is that the most inhumane social policy was to allow crime rates to reach such intolerable heights partly due to permissive social and criminal justice policies commenced under "Great Society" idealism. 

Unfortunately, a bipartisan group of Senators, including some otherwise leading conservatives such as Mike Lee (R - Utah), hope to send legislation loosening mandatory minimum sentences to Obama to sign. 

But Senator Cotton, joined by others such as Jim Risch (R - Idaho) and David Perdue (R - Georgia), have mounted an opposition movement even as Senators Lee and John Cornyn (R - Texas) continue to defend the proposal.  "It would be very dangerous and unwise," Senator Cotton says, "to proceed with the Senate Judiciary bill, which would lead to the release of thousands of violent felons." 

Notably, former Mayor Giuliani himself and former Attorney General John Ashcroft support Senator Cotton's position.  In a December letter to Congress voicing their concerns over the proposed bill, Giuliani and Ashcroft wrote that, "Mandatory minimums and proactive law-enforcement measures have caused a dramatic reduction in crime over the past 25 years, an achievement we cannot afford to give back."  In highlighting the "significant risks to public safety" posed by the bill, they concluded, "Our system of justice is not broken." 

As a result of those efforts, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) has suggested a pause due to his aversion toward advancing bills on which the Republican majority remains divided.  Accordingly, prudence may prevail. 

To be sure, in some respects our criminal justice system does merit dramatic reform. 

That is particularly true with regard to the unfathomable proliferation of federal criminal laws and the elimination of the mens rea, or guilty mind, component of so many of those laws.  Today, over 5,000 criminal statutes and 300,000 criminal regulations at the administrative level exist.  That proliferation has reached such dire levels that the Department of Justice is no longer able to state with certainty the precise number of federal criminal laws. 

Indeed, Senator Cotton himself actually supports criminal justice reform in the realm of requiring criminal intent in federal criminal statutes, as well as reform to our prison system. 

But what we shouldn't do is throw the baby out with the bathwater, jettisoning criminal justice policies that have proven so effective over the past two decades in slashing American crime rates.  For that we owe Senator Cotton gratitude.