Rolling back criminal justice reforms won’t make us safer

Rolling back criminal justice reform would be a tragically misguided response to acts of violence against Asian Americans in the Bay Area. And it would do nothing to make our communities safer.

We are Asian American attorneys — born, raised and living in the South Bay — practicing criminal defense law in Santa Clara County. We are no strangers to racism and xenophobia. So we were saddened to hear of recent crimes against members of our communities. They could have easily been us or our own family members.

But we were also deeply disappointed to see Daniel Chung praise the failed policies of the past in his Feb. 14 op-ed, “Criminal justice reforms must protect victims, communities.”

Knee-jerk calls for harsher sentences harken back to an earlier era that didn’t make us safer, while exploiting racial divisions and community fear.

Our two concerns here — support for victims and opposition to lengthier jail and prison sentences — are not in conflict. History has shown heavyhanded sentencing is no solution.

Recent criminal justice reforms demonstrate an understanding that incarceration does not make our communities safer in the long run. We need more tools in our toolbox than simply throwing people in cages.

Prison does not help change any bias an offender may harbor about Asian Americans. In fact, prison is one of the few places left in our society where we allow racial segregation. Instead, we all would benefit if the offender participated in community-based treatment and rehabilitative programs. These programs can help to resolve a person’s anger or racial hostility while addressing underlying mental health or socioeconomic issues that contributed to the harmful conduct.

Mental health diversion is a prime example. The law provides this option, in appropriate cases, to divert an offender out of the usual prosecution pipeline and into treatment programs that address the underlying causes of the person’s behavior.

Here’s how it works: First, a judge hears input from the prosecutor and the defense attorney to determine if a professionally diagnosed mental disorder played a substantial role in a crime. Next, the judge considers whether the offender is amenable to a treatment program laid out by a mental health professional. Finally, the judge decides whether or not the person poses an unreasonable risk to public safety.

If the judge is satisfied the person clears all of these hurdles, the judge may grant mental health diversion. In this way, diversion is a powerful tool to ensure that root causes of crime are addressed, survivors are respected and protected, and public safety is ensured. By addressing harm and providing treatment, this outcome is more just and productive than a felony conviction and prison sentence could ever be.

Sure, state prison may slow the revolving door’s turn every once in a while, but it does not stop the door from turning. Most people who go to prison are eventually released. And they are usually worse for the experience. Incarceration compounds trauma and dysfunction. Jail and prison do not make offenders better people. Prison does not teach people how to become productive, healthy members of society.

So who pays the price when an incarcerated person, traumatized by years behind bars, is released into the community? Let’s cut off that cycle of violence and victimization.

This is a moment for all of us to reflect on racial divisions and violence against Asian Americans. It is also the right time to move forward with policies that hold offenders accountable, respond to the underlying causes of harm, and make our communities safer.

Prison does not help change any bias an offender may harbor about Asian Americans. In fact, prison is one of the few places left in our society where we allow racial segregation.