The 1968 Omnibus Crime Bill, The 1984 Crime Bill, 3 strikes laws, mandatory sentencing laws, The War on Drugs, the list can go on and on. In the past 4 decades we have scene an explosion in tough on crime policies such as the ones mentioned above. Why is this case? In the books The Perpetual Prison Machine by Joel Dyer, Lockdown America by Christian Parenti, and Michael Moore’s movie Bowling for Columbine various theories are presented as to why the United States has enacted perpetually stiffer policies against crime with the support of the public. In the following paragraphs, I am going to summarize the theories perpetuated by Moore, Parenti, and Dyer, discuss where they agree and disagree, and offer my own insights and analysis.

            Tonight on the evening news, you are going to be murdered, burglarized, raped, assaulted, have drugs sold to your children, by your neighbor, priest, husband, teacher, mother, father, wife, senator, a recently released parole, and a bum on the street. That borderline run on sentence was a little bit of hyperbole; however, Dyer and Moore both point to that type of fear mongering as one of the major causes for the United States’ current policies on crime.

             “T.V. News has taken place of our kitchen window as our viewing point of the world.”(Dyer. P. 83) Why is this significant? Well, as I look out my window right now, I see some cars on the road, Christmas lights on a house across the street, and a cat walking around. Nothing outside my window is going to make me fear for my safety or send me cowering under my bed. I might be told by a politician that I need to support tough on crime policies because criminals were running rampant and constant crime was occurring on the streets. However, if I was using my daily experiences and what is going on outside my window as what I based my view of what is happening in the world,  then I would most likely look at that politician and think they were trying to sell me a load of malarkey. On the other hand, now that people get their information from television and other media whether it be the old media like newspapers or the new media such as the internet, we get a completely different perspective about how much danger we are actually in on a day to day basis. When watching T.V. news coverage we get a world perspective where “eighty one percent of crimes reported on are sensational violent crime, as opposed to the less then one percent of actual crimes percentage that sensational violent crimes actually make up.” (Parenti p. 87) In scene 18 of Michael Moore’s Bowling For Columbine we get a montage of scenes from news coverage that shows quick shots off all of the different types of stories the media focuses on that lead to many people having a constant general fear. These stories in the montage about what to fear vary from the coming invasion of killer bees that never occurred to the murderers next door. 

            So now the media has influenced public opinion to the point where people state in polls that crime is their number one issue. What’s a politician to do? Try to deduce via analysis of the real world the crime policies that will most benefit the public and then try to pursued the public via rational debate why those policies would benefit the public or just give the public what it wants which is “hard on crime” policies that are meant to deal with the phantom crime wave that the media has persuaded the public exists. Most politicians would go for the latter option; because the only alternative to “hard on crime” in the black and white catch phrase political rhetoric that we consider public discourse today is being “soft on crime.” Being labeled soft on crime is the kiss of death  for someone with political ambitions. In fact politicians who have been interviewed have stated that “they had to ignore doing what was best for their constituents because they were uniformly afraid that supporting prison alternatives would allow them to be painted soft on crime” (Dyer p. 127) Then after a politician has gotten elected endorsing tough on crime policies to ease the fears that the public has of crime that were flamed in intensity by the media’ fear mongering described by Moore and Parenti, it is time to enact some legislation.

            The actual legislation ratified the last few decades and the resulting affects is more the focus of Parenti’s Lockdown America. When “hard on crime” politicians like Ronald Reagan get into office they quickly take actions that help them circumvent the current laws and create new ones.  “Reagan stacked the federal bench with mean spirited anti crime anti drug zealots who in turn began handing down law that empowered the prosecution.” (Parenti p.48)

             Using the judicial system is not the only way that politicians can subvert the political system to pass crime legislation without little public notice or debate. The 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act was tacked on to an appropriations bill. This legislation had far reaching effects. Notably it revolutionized and increased the use of asset forfeiture which created an insidious relationship between drug money and law enforcements budgets. (Parenti 50)

            The Broken Windows Theory also had a major impact on the way law enforcement operated in New York first and then across the country. The theory states that’s enforcing minor laws against things such as public urination and graffiti creates and aura of regulation that helps prevent more serious crimes like murder and rape. (Parenti p. 71) When the experts like Wilson and Kelling trumpet something like the broken windows theory, it will quickly be enacted by rule making public officials looking to appear tough on crime. But then someone has to actually enforce these new laws. No one likes to be told they are going to be expected to do more work at their jobs with out extra benefits and police officers who have to enforce the Broken Windows Theory are no exception. “To rejuvenate the rank and file police officers, Bratton lobbied and got more cars, new radios, better uniforms, and new Glock nine millimeters for the police officers expected to enforce the new broken window policy. (Parenti p. 72) Thus, the Broken Windows theory ended up having a trickle down effect that gave the rule enforcers who are lower on the totem pole more self respect and more power.

            If you think this zero tolerance policy on small infractions was limited to New York, think again. “The perpetual wave in the drop in the New York crime rate motivated other large metropolitan cities to enlist similar policies to New York’s broken windows.” (Parenti p. 83) The zero tolerance policies were also taken from the macro scale of a big city to the micro scale of high schools after the Columbine High School shooting massacre. Many schools after the shooting performed zero tolerance policies that suspended students for minor infractions as silly as an elementary school aged child being suspended for pretending a piece of paper was a gun all in the name of preventing another Columbine. (Moore. Scene 12) In addition to zero tolerance policies, schools tried prevention measures like metal detectors to curb school gun violence. Moore’s Bowling For Columbine even features a video from a company that manufactures metal detectors promoting why they should be used at schools. One could possibly assume that companies that make and install metal detectors would send some cash to a politician that supported their use in schools.

            The type of lobbying I theoretically described at the end of the last paragraph happens all the time when it comes to the ever growing business of private prisons. For example, in Tennessee Governor Sundquist’s former chief of staff owned CCA (a private prison company) stock while she was advising the governor on prison privatization. (Dyer P. 148) When there is a not direct relationship such as that one between private prisons and politicians, there are still many other ways private prison lobbyists can influence politicians. They can donate money to politicians who will drive business in their directions. In this case driving business means giving contracts to private prisons and creating laws that will full those prisons up.

            But can’t private prison actually be a good thing because they will be run more efficiently then public prisons? “Private public prison partnerships that are comprised of profit seeking corporations and an inefficient government payer and overseer-is a disaster waiting to happen.” (Dyer p. 226) Examples of this type of private prison profiteering from public funds are wide spread. In Colorado the state got ripped off in a real estate contract with a private prison when the officials in the correction department did not have any one on staff with the ability to properly analyze the deal. (Dyer p. 227)

            The preceding paragraphs describe the mess that corrections policy has become in this country and Moore, Dyer, and Parenti’s theories as to why we have come to this point. Now it is time to discuss their ideas for solutions to help us steer back into the light of logical crime policies. Parenti talks about “less incarceration, shorter sentences, fewer laws for individual behavior, less discussion of lurid crime, less probation, less concern with freaks and deviants.” (p. 242) Parenti then goes on to discuss the need for more activism and protest for against the system and to create more jobs that pay a living wage. (p. 243)

            Dyer and Moore point more to needing to reform the media. One of the reoccurring themes in Moore’s Bowling For Columbine is why does a gun obsessed nation like Canada have so few murders compared to the United States. In Scene 24 he points to the fact that Canadian T.V. does not appear to have the same level of obsession with things for the people to fear. His solution seems to be stop the media fear mongering and then people will not be as paranoid, fear their neighbors, and thus not be so quick to violent or support needless tough on crime policies that have no real effect. Dyer has a similar theory, but believes that the only people who can really change this is the public as a whole.

            Dyer’s thesis is that the public says it wants one thing, but ends up taking actions that reward politicians and companies that do the opposite. His rant about things the public need to stop rewarding is long: We must not reward the media and politicians when they engage in fear mongering. (Dyer p. 267) We must not vote for politicians who state vague goals as opposed to operational ones. (p.273) We must not send prisoners to private prisons with the alleged reason to rehab the prisoner when we give the private prison motives to not rehab the prisoner and thus get paid more money for the longer they are in jail. (p. 274)

          Now I will editorialize for a little. I agree with many of the major theory of Moore and Dyer that there is a connection between the mass media constant images of violence creating a non-rational fear in the public which leads to foolish policies that are intended to be hard on crime. However, I believe the solution of some sort of mass sea change in the public’s behavior to stop rewarding news outlets that focus on sensationalized violence and to stop voting for politicians because they are tough on crime is foolhardily idealistic. Same goes for Parenti’s idea of mass protests to change things. (Only a draft will spark real mass protest and despite what Chuck Rangel is trying to pull off that’s not going to happen)

            There has to be a reason that the public wakes up and realizes that what they see in the media has no basis in reality. In order to do that we need a better educated public. To accomplish this I would require every high school student in the country to pass a course in being media savvy, a course in logic, and a course in statistics before they graduate. I know this will be tough to do because many schools can’t teach basic subjects like math and English up to par, but we need to have standards to make sure the country has a well informed populace that cant be easily fooled via political Orwellian double talk and media conglomerates that are only beholden to their stock holders. Once the public becomes more informed and rational, hopefully they will be able to apply that to the decisions they make and the policies they support when they enter the voting booth every November

Reference

Dyer, Joel. 2000. The Perpetual Prison Machine; How America Profits from Crime.           Boulder CO. Westview Press.

Moore, Michael. (2002). Bowling For Columbine. {Motion Picture}/ (Available from        United Artist)

Parenti, Christian. 1999. Lock Down America; Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis.       London. Verso.