Click photo to enlarge
Mace Thompson, of Richmond, holds a sign while attending a prayer vigil opposing the proposed plans for a jail expansion in Contra Costa County in front of the Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building in Martinez, Calif. on Monday, July 9, 2012. Faith leaders lead a delegation to meet with Contra Costa Sheriff David Livingston to appeal jail expansion and to stop mass deportations and mass incarceration. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Staff)

When former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado last month unofficially kicked off his campaign for governor by announcing the launch of a tough-on-crime ballot initiative, he had by his side Nina Salarno-Ashford, a member of the executive board for the group Crime Victims United.

That group was founded by the mother of a murder victim, in close association with the state prison guards' union.

It has become an important voice in debates about crime-and-punishment issues in California because of the powerful empathy everyone feels for the suffering of those who have lost a loved one to violence.

Its position, on issues from the "Three-Strikes Law" to sentencing reform, has been consistent support for any policy that locks criminals in prison for as long as possible.

But is that how crime victims uniformly feel?

Apparently not, judging from the results of a unique poll that was commissioned by an advocacy group called Californians for Safety and Justice.

The polling firm David Binder Research randomly called 2,600 Californians to find 500 who said they had been victims of crime in the last five years. They, too, are deserving of empathy.

Two out of three said they had been the victims of multiple crimes, and the same percentage said they experienced significant stress and anxiety that affected their work and social relationships.

But their views on criminal justice, Binder says, are "at odds with preconceived notions."


Advertisement

When asked whether California should "focus more on sending people to jail and prison or more on providing supervised probation and rehabilitation programs," they chose rehabilitation by a ratio of more than 2-to-1.

A majority of these crime victims said they believe California "sends too many people to prison" and that time spent in prison often results in criminals learning how to become better criminals.

Based on his polling, Binder came to this conclusion: "Victims want to focus on rehabilitation."

The findings of the poll are noteworthy as policymakers evaluate the effects of the 2011 public safety realignment program that shifted about 30,000 low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails.

The shift was motivated in large part by the imperative to meet a U.S. Supreme Court order that California dramatically decrease its prison population. But it was also driven by the desire to spend money on corrections more efficiently and by the hope that locally based probation services would be more likely than the state parole system to provide effective rehabilitation.

Public safety realignment is the focus of Maldonado's ire. He calls the program "early release," and asserts that its architect, Gov. Jerry Brown, "has deceived the public into believing that they are safer under his public safety experiment."

The public at large seems to buy into both sides of the argument. A USC Dornsife College/Los Angeles Times poll showed that 74 percent of Californians support the idea behind realignment -- but that a majority would oppose it if it meant an increase in crime.

It is an issue too often debated by anecdote, whether it's Crime Victims United founder Harriet Salarno talking about the 1979 murder of her daughter, or Californians for Safety and Justice supporter Dionne Wilson talking about the 2005 murder of her police-officer husband. Each has a powerful story to tell; each comes to a different conclusion about criminal justice policies.

As for Maldonado, he botched his initial attempt at argument-by-anecdote by invoking the case of an ex-con who had been rearrested for a new offense. But it turned out that the man in question had been released from prison long before realignment.

Just as these crime-and-punishment policies shouldn't be determined by anecdote, neither should they be decided by polls -- not a poll of victims, not a poll of Californians at large.

The public safety realignment program must be given a chance to unfold, to be assessed and analyzed, and ultimately to be maintained, adjusted or scrapped based on actual evidence.

A one-year-later analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California last year came to exactly that conclusion.

"Preliminary data indicate that some communities around the state are experiencing an increase in property crime while others are seeing a continuing decline in criminal activity," it said. "Unfortunately, the cause-and-effect relationships within these communities are confounded by a prolonged recession and severe budget cuts to local law enforcement and social services programs. Crime rates and realignment need to be closely monitored and carefully analyzed."

Emotional arguments based on anecdotes may be the stuff of political campaigns, but they are of little use in evaluating public policy.