It seems like just yesterday that criminal justice reform was in vogue.

Progressives were elected prosecutors. Laws have been passed to reduce prison overcrowding and keep offenders who need medical treatment rather than jail time out of the system. The oversentences of the Crack and Three Strike eras have been undone. Bail and the death penalty were on the defensive.

Then came the inevitable backlash. The mood soured as the crime rate slowly rose from near-historical lows, and harsh conservative stances on crime began to rekindle, clashing with liberal policies.

Progressive San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, elected in 2019, was ousted in the 2022 recall election after being accused of “indulging” criminals. Los Angeles Township Athi. George Gascon, another reformer with a “pro-crime” policy, narrowly avoided his second recall petition last year.

Homelessness and crime became a discussion in the dining halls of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Subway violence has captured the hearts of New Yorkers. A fentanyl-related overdose has caused San Francisco to rethink its “sanctuary city” law. The law that reformed unfair bail procedures in New York City four years ago Downsized 3 times, most recently in April. Police once threatened to cut funding saw the budget increase in many cities across the country.

Crime ranked as the second most important issue for voters heading into last fall’s midterm elections. According to Gallup.

The battle continues, and it is against this backdrop that I read last week that 42-year-old public defender-turned-prosecutor-turned-civilian Boudin was recruited to the University of California, Berkeley Law School. I read an article that become secretary general Establishment of a new Criminal Law and Judicial Center.

The center will conduct litigation, legislative advocacy, and public education with the aim of reforming the criminal justice system, which is arguably often unfair, punitive and ineffective.

But when I called Boudin to talk about his new job, I was especially happy to hear that he was also focusing on another area: data analysis and research. He says he is fed up with the public debate about criminal policy “lacking science, data and even short-term memory.”

Finally.

It has long been a truism that attitudes toward crime and punishment are cyclical, marked by pendulum swings of leniency followed by a desire to crack down and indefinitely imprison everyone. Public sentiment is largely determined by whether crime appears to be increasing or decreasing.

But often these mood changes depend on how safe people are. felt Rather than how safe they actually are, they are driven by emotion, fear, and frightening anecdotes, not facts. Public policy is often determined in response to banner headlines and sensational tweets, and by politicians reading polls.

There is also strong political pressure from police, prison guards unions, general prosecutors and victims of crime groups, whose horror stories encourage a return to what they believe is a policy of throwing away keys. . Progressive reformers, like their opponents, can be ideologically rigid and emotionally driven.

So I’m looking for more solid information about what’s going on, what’s working and what’s not. Mr. Boudin notes that Congress tends to pass laws without looking back and analyzing the consequences a year or two later. Or launch a pilot program, but strangely don’t study the results.

Here’s what I’d like to know (but I’m not going to suggest that they haven’t been researched):

When you convert people out of the criminal justice system into substance abuse treatment and mental health care, do they pay for their deeds or do they re-offend?

Would releasing more suspects before trial increase the crime rate dramatically or only slightly?

Do safe places of consumption promote drug use, and if so, how does that weigh against the lives saved by preventing overdoses?

Boudin is a well-known advocate of progressive criminal justice reform policies. I asked him if his data analysis was simply to confirm his preconceived notions. he stood on his hands.

“I have my worldview, my lived experience, my professional experience, but that doesn’t mean I’m results-oriented in my research,” he said. “I want policy choices to be supported by facts, not by the lack of information currently available.”

For my part, I support criminal justice reform, but I am not an ideologue. I think they are housing far too many people who actually need medical attention. We make it very difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society. There are clear inequalities, racial and otherwise, in the bail system and sentencing process. We are too tolerant of inhumane treatment and excessive force.

But I also believe we need to keep dangerous people off the streets. I think the police should be allowed to carry out their duties fairly and responsibly.

We welcome further research to help policy makers develop smart, humane and effective strategies to combat crime and rehabilitate offenders.

Boudin is a fascinating character whose backstory has been told so often that it may have become all too familiar. His mother, Kathy Boudin, was a member of the militant Weather Underground, and took part in the robbery of Brink’s armored truck in 1981, in which three people died. She spent 22 years in prison. his father, David Gilbertspent 40 years in prison for participating in the same crime.

That means their son spent much of his childhood and adolescence visiting them in and out of prison, even after he became a lawyer, public defender, and prosecutor. He believes his “live experience” will help bridge the gap between the real world and what is being debated by lawmakers in Sacramento.

The way I see it, Mr. Boudin was removed from office as district attorney by voters who didn’t give him a good enough chance. Let’s see if he and the new Center for Berkeley Law can produce useful data and innovative policy recommendations that will stop the pendulum and make police enforcement and prosecutions fairer.

@Nick Goldberg