Issue Position: Public Safety

Issue Position

Ensuring the safety of our people is one of the most basic functions of any government. It is both a prerequisite for all that could be achieved, and achieved only by working on many of the other policies discussed here. A child living in fear, for example--either in the neighborhood or on school grounds--is not a child fully prepared to learn. Crime can keep people off the streets and out of public spaces, ruining a local economy and sense of community, and preventing the sustainable development of cities and towns across Massachusetts. Yet through improving access to better educational, economic, environmental, transportation, health and housing opportunities, Massachusetts can help to prevent much of the social disorder which disrupts the progress of communities. There are also ways in which to work within the justice system to further the goal of a Commonwealth free from fear. Here are a few:

Local Aid Support

More resources ought to be directed to communities facing funding gaps to support appropriate staffing levels for police and fire protection services. The current administration has made an effort to promote the regionalization of 911 communications centers and other cost-effective methods, and this should continue. More data sharing and cost sharing between jurisdictions can only lead to better results. Some communities, by failing to meet minimum staffing standards, can, in fact, jeopardize federal funding for even more staffing. Thus, there ought to be a concerted effort to bridge funding gaps so that those resources are not left on the table, and so that the costs of doing so are not borne by surrounding cities and towns, or by the men and women who now seek to protect us. Increased funding for safe streets and public parks should also be viewed as a preventative, long-term investment strategy for safer communities. As with other forms of local aid, appropriations should be linked to the presence of sound, data-driven practices like CompStat programs, community and smart policing strategies, fire prevention and others, in order to increase the impact of those investments. Where there is not the revenue to support increases to programs like the anti-gang Shannon grants or public parks in underserved areas of our Gateway cities, we must find creative ways to realign existing resources.

Focus on Local Justice Reinvestment

The Great Recession brought declining revenues to local governments despite consistently increasing costs, and therefore brought into focus whether the costs of the criminal justice system are warranted by the results it has yielded. With the assistance of the Department of Justice, seventeen states have begun to implement Justice Reinvestment initiatives which reflect on what is driving higher prison populations and costs, and seek to reduce costs by carefully evaluating the impact and effectiveness of criminal justice policies and practices. Though not among the participating states, Massachusetts can learn from their examples of what works best and appropriately apply those lessons to our local contexts. Drug laws, sentencing and parole requirements, and lack of informed judicial discretion and sufficient rehabilitation have contributed to higher incarceration rates, wasted resources, and communities that are, in the end, less safe. Yet better systemic accountability measures, sentencing reform revising mandatory minimums and parole or probation revocation, expanded community-based treatment and post-release supervision policies can all work toward improved outcomes and lower overall costs. These cost-savings can then be reinvested in more effective, evidence-based strategies which continue a virtuous cycle, or can be estimated in a way that allows for upfront funding to more rapidly implement reforms. Even more importantly, a portion of savings can be dedicated to the revitalization of neighborhoods plagued by high incarceration rates so that problems do not become generational, and instead the solutions become local.

Supporting Restorative Justice

One reform that ought to be piloted, and could be supported at first as an option to adopt by local jurisdictions, is the notion of restorative justice which focuses on the needs of the victim, offender, and wider community in order to actually repair the harm done. State Senator Eldridge has filed legislation which would lend support to this approach that stands in contrast with the current retributive justice model that abstractly considers crime an offense against the state, rather than an individual and community. Restorative justice can take various forms as it seeks to more successfully rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society by making amends to the victim and local community. Research by the University of Massachusetts has found that restorative justice programs can be as much as six times more effective than the traditional model. Moreover, the concept may be applied not only to resolve and keep lower-level juvenile criminal offenses from overwhelming the justice system, but also to lead to the successful reentry of already incarcerated individuals into the community, by using prison time more constructively for learning and probation or parole time as an opportunity for community service. A Restorative Justice Corps could apply transitional time toward rebuilding harmed communities and the offenders' relationships to them.

In encouraging more communities to adopt restorative justice principles and programs, Massachusetts could reorganize its system of justice to better address the needs of victims of crime, criminal offenders, and the neighborhoods impacted, while diverting resources saved to more effective investments in the people and communities of our Commonwealth. It shifts resources to support important local priorities and more preventative strategies, but it also shifts responsibility to local cities, towns, and their members, to find solutions which fit each case and local context, and to more holistically design safe and healthy communities for justice.

Source