RESPONSE - Barkley
Dean M Barkley (barkley@Free-Net.Mpls-StPaul.MN.US)
Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:32:04 -0600 (CST)
QUESTION #3: The statistics, some have argued, show that the crime rate has
been relatively stable over the past 20 years. Yet violent crime has been
the number one public concern over this election season. What, in
actuality, do you perceive to be the root cause of this upsurge in fear?
Is is really a factually verifiable increase in the incidence of violent
crime, or is it something else? What can you, as a member of the United
States Senate, do to address what you perceive to be the root cause of this
fear? Why is it the responsibility of the federal government to concern
itself with such issues?
Response from Dean Barkley:
The facts of your question are correct. While crime is a serious issue,
candidates for office have elevated public fear more than the criminals
themselves. Such fear mongering and posturing is especially unfortunate
when exercised in the Congress itself.
As your question implies, the federal government has minimal responsibility
for our crime problem. The feds of course have legitimate involvement but
95% of criminal prosecution is done by state and county jurisdictions.
The highly touted federal crime bill amounts to little more that taking a
cancer patient to the beauty parlor. While it doles out certain high
visibility items, they are too widely dispersed to have meaningful
effect on our national crime rate.
Our nation already has the toughest laws and one of the highest per capita
incarceration rates in the world. Yet our crime rate remains essentially
unchanged. Why? In two words, plea bargaining.
It does little good to have more cops arresting more people on charges
carrying tougher penalties that will only be plea bargained away in the
courts. Partial solutions like three strikes and you're out and boot
camps overlook the core problem of our hopelessly backlogged courts.
I believe deterrence would be more effective, especially for violent
crimes, if we unclog our courts. If a would-be criminal knows he or she
will be charged, prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned in short order on
full charges, one would think twice before committing a crime. As it is,
criminals go to trial months, even years, after the fact and victims are
often enraged by the delays and light treatment criminals receive.
Plea bargains are a necessary evil to move cases through our undersized
court system. If we want cases heard on full charges in a timely manner,
the solution is obvious; add more prosecutors, judges and jailers. This
would require the doubling if not tripling of our court system. Some
sources suggest a ten fold increase is necessary. But the public has
been reluctant to support this option.
This leaves us with Congresspersons making grand speeches about the
great job they did at the beauty parlor. If the public remains
unwilling to expand the courts, I would nevertheless be a responsible
senator and encourage citizens to examine their role in our crime debate.
I would be embarrassed to proclaim myself as tough on crime if I did
little more than vote for cosmetic legislation designed more to posture
for votes than to address the core issues of crime.
Specific crime measures I support include "three strikes and you're out"
for violent repeat offenders and restitution for victims. The 10% of
criminals that commit 80% of the violent crimes must serve full sentences.
I do not support overcrowding our prisons with non-violent drug addicts
who need treatment not jail. I support reasonable gun control measures
such as the five day wait but am also protective of our constitutional
right to keep and bear arms. I do not view our Bill of Rights as a
multiple choice questionnaire.
Dean Barkley
Independence Party Candidate for Senate