When it comes to crime and justice, Trump and Harris’ records differ greatly

Although crime and criminal justice policy are key issues in many elections, that is not the case in 2024. Polls show that relatively few American voters rank crime as their top concern.

But both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris say they are taking these issues seriously. Trump and Republicans have focused attention on the problem of illegal immigration and the crimes he says immigrants commit.

Harris, as The Economist noted, “uses her past as a prosecutor in San Francisco to sharpen her grip on crime.” She has mentioned that background in the context of immigration, drug policy and corporate wrongdoing.

As someone who studies crime and justice in the United States, it is clear to me that there are significant differences between the two candidates, although each of their records contains some interesting twists.

Kamala Harris, the prosecutor

Harris has a long history of working in the criminal justice system. Beginning in 1990, she worked in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in California, where she specialized in child sexual assault cases. She then served as district attorney in San Francisco from 2004 to 2010 and as attorney general of California from 2010 to 2017, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Axios reported that during her tenure as district attorney, “violent crime in the city of San Francisco rose steadily in her first five years in office and declined 15% in the last two years.” And when she served as the state’s attorney general, “the Violent crime rate in the state in the year before she took office was 439.6 per 100,000 residents and fell to 396.4 by 2014. … However, in her final year in 2016, violent crime rose to a six-year high of 444.8,” Axios reported.

In both offices, Harris implemented a number of criminal justice policy reforms.

In San Francisco, for example, she developed a “Back on Track” initiative aimed at helping non-violent drug offenders between the ages of 18 and 30. According to the New York Times, their main promise was that “after a full year of employment…” such as education, community service, regular meetings with a supervising judge, and criminal-free behavior, the charge would be expunged from one’s criminal record.” It was generally well received, particularly among progressives.

When Harris became the state’s attorney general, she reformed California’s approach to truancy by focusing on the parents of truant children. As the New York Times reported, she threatened them “with fines or even prison if they didn’t ensure their children attended classes.” FactCheck.org found that district attorneys “prosecuted three to six…cases” as a result of their policy. per year,” on average.

Reflecting on Harris’ record in California, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, Calif.) said Harris “earned a reputation for cracking down on sexual abuse, human trafficking and organized crime and has not shied away from seeking incarceration.”

Harris has been an opponent of the death penalty throughout her career. During her first campaign for San Francisco district attorney, she promised that she would never seek a death sentence, no matter how heinous the crime. She stuck to that promise, but went to court as attorney general to defend death sentences handed down under previous administrations.

The Los Angeles Times said her decision was an appropriate decision for the attorney general to “put professional responsibility over personal politics.”

CNN summed up her record on the death penalty by saying she was “heartbroken on both sides.”

Donald Trump’s record as president

Trump, on the other hand, was a strong supporter of the death penalty during his time in the Oval Office. In March 2018, he directed the Justice Department to seek the death penalty in cases involving drug traffickers. The Division also vigorously pursued new death penalty cases in other areas and defended existing death sentences in court.

After a long period without federal executions, the Trump administration carried out 13 of them in the final seven months of his term. ProPublica said Trump’s administration “executed more federal prisoners than any presidency since Franklin Delano Roosevelt” and more than the 10 presidents before that combined.

In other areas, the Trump administration stepped in and halted some criminal justice reform initiatives. For example, according to ABC News, Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, halted former President Barack Obama’s efforts to end prison privatization and then began handing out contracts for new privately run prisons.

But during his presidency, Trump did not consistently crack down on crime. For example, in March 2018, he signed an executive order creating the Federal Interagency Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry Council. He charged them with finding ways “to provide greater opportunities for those who have engaged in criminal activity to lead productive lives” and “developing a comprehensive strategy that addresses a range of issues, including mental health Health, vocational training, job creation, aftercare”. School programs, substance abuse and mentoring.”

The Biden administration built on and expanded these efforts.

And in December 2018, Trump supported the so-called “First Step Act,” which passed Congress with bipartisan support. It funded efforts to reduce the likelihood of inmates being resentenced upon release, including by providing addiction treatment, mental health care, education, and job training.

Trump also commuted the sentences of more than 90 people and pardoned more than 140 others. His use of the clemency power was quite controversial because some of its beneficiaries were Trump associates, such as Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort, who ran Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and committed financial fraud.

Regarding crime rates during Trump’s presidency, the Dallas Morning News reported: “During the first three years of Trump’s presidency, the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents fell each year. But the Morning News, citing Politifact, said that in 2020 “the violent crime rate skyrocketed,” although it was slightly lower than in Obama’s final year in office.

Crime and criminal justice in the next government

The next president will have to make decisions about the crime and justice policies the federal government will pursue and whether to emphasize reforms or harsh punishments. He or she must also decide whether and how the federal government should use grants and other resources, policies and enforcement to further these goals.

Their records suggest that Harris and Trump would make very different decisions on these and other crime and criminal justice issues.