By: Robert Harris
In a speech before the American Bar Association House of Delegates this week, Attorney General Eric announced a pronounced change in how the Department of Justice will address crime.
General Holder announced an shift to evidence based sentencing, ofter referred to as Smart Sentencing. This is a pronounced change from the previous administration, which emphasized the punitive aspects of sentencing.
The philosophy of Smart on Crime is that by using empirical evidence on what works to reduce recidivism, and by evaluating the resources available, we will be able to formulate sentences that get the most bang for the buck.
Oregon has two strong advocates of Smart Sentencing. Rep. Chip Shields, (D-Portland) and Multnomah County Circuit Judge Michael Marcus, who has a website devoted to Smart Sentencing.
It has never ceased to amaze me that so many "tough on crime" advocates refuse to even consider evidence based sentencing. Shouldn't reducing crime and protecting our communities and our families should be job one? And if that means more drug/alcohol treatment, job training, fewer prison beds, fewer victims and all at less taxpayer expense, why is that objectionable?
Comments