John Pfaff: The broad takeaway? The Feds can do very little when it comes to the crim legal system. Crime is intensely local (even within cities). Crime policy is driven by local politics and local spending. Which means debates abt crime by Fed officials are really abt deeper issues.

I don't plan to watch tonight's debate, bc I'm not THAT self-loathing, even tho I'm sure crime and punishment will come up. So figured it couldn't hurt to toss up a short thread to put whatever claims they are likely to make in context. tl;dr: neither did/does/will do much to cause OR stop crime.

1. The "Trump Crime Wave" of 2020 is the fault of Trump only to the extent that his mishandling of Covid created a general atmosphere of chaos and stress that contributes to violence. Given how the timing looks in the data, the Floyd-Protest theory seems much weaker than the Covid theory.

Testimony of John Roman to the Small Business Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives | NORC at the University of Chicagowww.norc.org

2. Biden likewise doesn't really deserve credit for the decline in crime in recent years, except to the extent his fiscal response gave local governments the ability to rehire NON-police employees. We never cut the police, so no need to refund them. But we did cut everyone else. And they matter.

Vital City | Two Big Thoughts About the Steep Crime Dropwww.vitalcitynyc.org Homicides seem less ‘sticky’ than previously theorized — and government employment may well prove essential to reducing violence.

3. We spend ~$100B per year on policing, another ~$50B on prisons. Any sort of pledge to give more money has to be put in that context (and watch for "$X million OVER Y YEARS" scams). As a general matter, feds throw a few bills on a massive pile of state/local cash. Marginal effect? VERY low.

It’s Been 30 Years Since Biden Passed His Most Notorious Law With Bill Clinton. It’s Still Totally Misunderstood.slate.com The infamous law has dogged him ever since. For all the wrong reasons.

4. The Fed policies that matter are more obscure laws like AEDPA and the PLRA which reduce access to fed courts to challenge bad cases and bad conditions. This is about the only way the Feds really matter. Any serious convo has to include them. Tonight? Will not be serious. (PLRA explainer here:)

The 1994 Crime Law Hogs The Legal Reform Spotlight. But A Lesser-Known Law Deserves More Attention.theappeal.org As the presidential election approaches, reformers should focus on the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which restricts the ability of incarcerated people to protest their conditions of confinement.

The broad takeaway? The Feds can do very little when it comes to the crim legal system. Crime is intensely local (even within cities). Crime policy is driven by local politics and local spending. Which means debates abt crime by Fed officials are really abt deeper issues.

Most famously, anger over crime is used as a way to express racial resentment in a more-socially acceptable way. But it's not really about crime. And so it shouldn't be fact-checked that way. If Trump says "crime is up!" when its down, saying its down DOES NOT ADDRESS HIS POINT.

Saying "crime is up" is Trump's way of saying "be afraid of Black ppl," and should be framed as such. Trump saying "I'll free up the cops to be more aggressive"--something he cannot directly do, except via reduced already-rare DOJ enforcement--really means "I favor social repression."

I think the politics of any pro-policing statements Biden makes are a bit more complex, bc his own coalition is a lot more fractured over the issue. GOPers are generally all-in on policing-as-social-control at all levels. But Dem voters are split, making Biden's comments less easy to parse.

The Real Reason Democrats Can’t Agree on How to Address Rising Crimeslate.com An uptick in shootings and homicides in 2020 has created a schism within the Democratic Party.

But, in short, none of it has a lot to do with crime itself, and to the extent it does both are likely to grossly overstate their ability to shape outcomes, and to ignore the ways in which their impact can really matter.

Also, should have added this: have to realize the negative spillovers from bad rhetoric. Like: emphasizing the police as the response to rising homicides ignores the fact that drug ODs are rising MUCH more. And more cops like = MORE OD deaths, bc of policies cops push for.

Post