April Spotlight on Criminal Justice: Swift, Certain, Fair
As the Trump administration’s new iteration has placed heavy rhetorical emphasis on public safety, an issue that remains top of mind for many voters—particularly those aligned with the current president’s political party—we must look closely at the types of policies we know can address the public safety question head on.
Undoubtedly, the best way to keep the public safe is to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Efforts meant to prevent crime are broadly known as “deterrence.” In the “tough-on-crime” era of the late 1900s, the broad consensus was that long prison sentences and harsh punishments were the most effective crime deterrents. However, a new evidence-based consensus has emerged from new research over the past few decades: swift, certain, and fair punishment is the strongest deterrent of crime, while severe punishments do not deter criminal activity.
In layman’s terms, this means that increasing the certainty of being caught and quickly sanctioned—almost regardless of the ensuing punishment—is the best way to prevent crime. For example, if the chance of being caught and sanctioned is only 5 percent, and even if the threatened punishment is 20 years behind bars, committing the offense is still a safe bet by the numbers. But if the chance of being caught and sanctioned increases to 95 percent, even if the threatened punishment is only six months in jail, the likelihood of an individual committing the offense plummets.
Given this understanding, it is increasingly clear that the most rational approach for policymakers is to focus on strategies that increase certainty and swiftness in policing and prosecution. This means resisting the urge to return to outdated policies like truth in sentencing laws and mandatory minimum sentences. While the idea of locking away “bad guys” for a long time may be politically appealing and emotionally gratifying, the problem with this mentality is that it does not translate into public safety, which must remain paramount in policymaking. It relies on how long someone may theoretically be punished if they are caught instead of how reliably or promptly the system responds to crime that threatens the public. Simply put, lengthy sentences do little to deter individuals who believe they will not get caught in the first place, much less prosecuted for their offense.
The numbers bear this out. Over the last 10 years, the solve rate of violent crime in the United States hovered around 43 percent until dipping to a low of 37 percent in 2022. When combined with the knowledge that less than half of violent crime is even reported to police, the solve rate of all violent crime drops to less than 20 percent.
Improving these abysmal case clearance rates requires an all-hands-on-deck approach, from policing to prosecution. In theory, police should spend most of their time on cases involving violent crime. However, due to the overcriminalization of an abundance of low-level offenses (among other factors), research shows that police spend, on average, only 4 percent of their time working cases that involve violence. Given that violent crimes make up more than four times that percentage in terms of crime rates, policymakers should seek ways to rightsize this imbalance, especially when considering citizens’ concerns about this type of crime.
Increasing the use of alternate response models and using deflection and diversion can help free up office time, particularly as many departments face understaffing issues. The follow-through of ensuing programs can help reduce future reoffense and build the legitimacy of law enforcement and the justice system in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, improving relationships between law enforcement and prosecutors can help build better cases that ensure violent offenders who are caught are indeed punished. Court processing improvements are also necessary to reduce backlogs in court systems and allow justice to be served more swiftly and fairly.
The question for policymakers is not (and has never been) whether or not to hold offenders accountable. The real question is how to go about it. Building our system around swift, certain, and fair sanctions—rather than overly punitive sentences—is a goal grounded in evidence and focused on what actually works to prevent crime and keep communities safe across the country.