Criminal Justice Reform Is Good, But, Like Everything, It Requires Common Sense And Moderation

Controversial take: cities shouldn’t let drug addicts rot in the street

I don’t actually know much about public policy, overall. Technically I have a master’s degree in it, but that master’s degree was much more about obtaining some basic quantitative chops than actually putting myself in a position where I was sufficiently qualified to analyze the ins and outs of Policy A versus Policy B and render a verdict.

I do have some strong feelings about what the general shape of public policy should be. I feel strongly that society should act to smooth out the role of luck in determining who gets what. I have a rather expansive view of what is caused, or caused mostly, by luck — I think it might be everything, which is probably an argument for another day — so as a direct result, I think we should have robust safety nets in place. 

But “We should do something to address inequality and make sure luck doesn’t play an undue role in generating winners and losers” is really just the introductory step toward formulating public policy. It’s like choosing what type of food you want — after that, you still need to pick a restaurant, look over the menu, and make specific selections.

Back in college and my early years in the workforce, I was politically activated by causes like the war on drugs and, relatedly, the United States’ system of mass incarceration. Both struck me as bloated, unfair systems that often did more harm than good. By, say, 2010, there was a burgeoning bipartisan consensus that the U.S. had cracked down too hard on nonviolent criminals, especially ones who were poor and couldn’t muster a strong defense in court, and that various aspects of this system should be reformed. (This book looks like an interesting attempt to explain “Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration,” and both the authors are quite smart and accomplished, but I haven’t read it.)