Will Lamont embrace ‘tough on crime’ policies?

The problem with arguing against anecdotes is that there’s always another one.

Person A says, “Look at this terrible thing that happened.” Person B responds, “Overall, terrible things are happening less often than they used to.” Person A: “Look, another terrible thing happened!”

Hence the ongoing debate about crime in Connecticut.

Some crimes are up. Others are down. The state is by many measures among the safest in the nation. That does not mean bad things don’t happen.

The question is what, if anything, to do about it. Here’s where we get into uncharted territory because, much as politicians of all stripes would like to pretend otherwise, there’s shockingly little reason to believe anyone knows why crime goes up or down, short term or long term. There are too many variables.

That hasn’t stopped anyone from arguing. Republicans, shut out of power in state government, shout with one voice that crime in Connecticut is out of control and that action must be taken. Democrats, for the most part, have refused to take the bait, which just leads to more shouting.

The statistics on what crimes have gone up or down have been widely reported, but the summary is that most crime rates in Connecticut are lower than the national average, but some of the most serious crimes, including homicides, are up from prepandemic levels.

It’s important to make distinctions when we say a number is “up.” Up from what? If a number rises by some huge percentage but it started out small, that doesn’t mean much. Bee stings in my house went from one last year to four this year. A 300 percent increase! That’s true, but not all that meaningful. It’s one way politicians get away with using numbers that are accurate but also little help to anyone who’s trying to understand what’s happening.

Of course, these are serious issues. If shootings are up — as they are in many cities — we should want to know why. But declining to follow advice that calls for locking up more people for longer sentences does not mean a lack of caring.

And this is where the Republican call for a greater response to crime runs into its most serious stumbling block. From the perspective of many people who are involved in the daily life of Connecticut cities, their sudden concern with rising crime numbers in those communities appears opportunistic. Put simply, few people believe that state Republicans woke up one day and decided as one that crime in our cities, a problem going back generations, was suddenly their top concern. It is a certainty that city residents care more about crime than anyone, but that’s not where this push is coming from.

It matters that crime is down in the aggregate since the 1990s. It matters because much of the policy response to those darker days was to simply lock people up for everlonger sentences, which not only didn’t have an appreciable effect on crime but also added a new layer of devastation on vulnerable communities. We can’t prison our way out of high crime. We should have learned that by now.

To their credit, some of the proposed Republican responses look at root causes of crime, at least on the surface. But the overall impact of their proposals, if put into effect, would be to further empower law enforcement at the expense of residents of the cities, which is where the majority of the state’s Black people live. That might make some suburbanites feel safer, but it wouldn’t appreciably impact crime numbers and would continue a legacy of harmful policies. At the same time, Republicans have not specified where the money for their proposals would come from, which ought to be a signal of how seriously they’re taking the question.

The final piece of this equation, adding yet another layer of confusion, is the governor, decidedly not a Republican. Still, he repeated many of the opposing party’s talking points in a recent news conference dedicated to the issue of youth crime that raised more questions than it answered.

He hasn’t signaled that he is going to pursue legislation, but with a reelection campaign already underway, it’s not impossible, either. He likely has advisers who want him to “get out in front” on the issue, or “take it off the table,” or some other political speak.

This is a dynamic worth watching. Lamont is the kind of governor who might find it useful to pick another fight with the left wing of his party in the name of centrism, much like he has on taxes and health care. Crime, or the perception of crime, would give him an opportunity to do so. Politically speaking, it might even make sense, since whoever he’s up against will surely highlight the issue.

None of that, though, would make it a good idea.