Politics, White-Collar Crime

What Would President Trump Do With The Criminal Justice System?

The good and the bad of the GOP platform.

By  
on

cartoon trump LFAs I write this, 538 says there’s a 38.1 percent chance that Donald Trump is our next president. To put that in context, it’s more likely that Donald Trump will be our President than that you’d roll either a 1 or 2 on a six-sided die.

Since those are not crazy odds — until you look at what they’re odds of — let’s think about what a Trump Presidency would mean for the criminal justice system.

As a first pass, based on the GOP convention, it appears that now is a very good time to represent Hillary Clinton. That may prove to be something of a growth industry.

Instead of chanting, say “Trump/Pence,” the delegates go with “Lock Her Up.” If one thinks that a convention chant ought to be something that alludes — however cryptically — to what the people chanting want to see happen (“Yes we can” expresses some sense of hope and change against some inchoate thing that would be hard to change), one would think the only goal of the Republican party these days is to imprison the former Secretary of State.

I’m no political scientist, but it strikes me that advocating that your political opponent should be imprisoned is not the most obvious way to dispel concerns that you are a fascist. Though, hopefully, it’s just that — as @unknowndelegate says — the vibe of the convention is contempt, and advocating imprisonment of Hillary Clinton is simply a catchy, Chris Christie inspired, way to display it.

And at least the chant isn’t openly misogynist, which, this election year, can perhaps be seen as something close to progress.

But, on the assumption that a Trump administration would try to implement things that are on the Republican Party platform — a dubious assumption, but if we don’t start somewhere we’ll never start — let’s look at the GOP platform on crime.

Sponsored

There is this incredibly hopeful language in the platform:

The resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and judicial systems have been strained by two unfortunate expansions: the over-criminalization of behavior and the over-federalization of offenses. The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to over 4,450 by 2008. Federal criminal law should focus on acts by federal employees or acts committed on federal property — and leave the rest to the States. Then Congress should withdraw from federal departments and agencies the power to criminalize behavior, a practice which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has created “tens of thousands” of criminal offenses. No one other than an elected representative should have the authority to define a criminal act and set criminal penalties. In the same way, Congress should reconsider the extent to which it has federalized offenses traditionally handled on the State or local level.

This is excellent — it’s exactly what needs to happen to reform one of the worst parts of our federal criminal system.

That said, this puts a lot on Congress. It doesn’t tell us much about how the Executive is supposed to function. Trump isn’t going to be able to repeal laws on his own — how would President Trump guide the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial discretion? Helpfully, the platform does give some guidance there:

The most effective forces in reducing crime and other social ills are strong families and caring communities supported by excellent law enforcement. Both reinforce constructive conduct and ethical standards by setting examples and providing safe havens from dangerous and destructive behaviors. But even under the best social circumstances, strong, well-trained law enforcement is necessary to protect us all, and especially the weak and vulnerable, from predators. Our national experience over the last several decades has shown that citizen vigilance, tough but fair prosecutors, meaningful sentences, protection of victims’ rights, and limits on judicial discretion can preserve public safety by keeping criminals off the streets.

Liberals do not understand this simple axiom: criminals behind bars cannot harm the general public. To that end, we support mandatory prison sentencing for gang crimes, violent or sexual offenses against children, repeat drug dealers, rape, robbery and murder.

Sponsored

I suspect that liberals do, in fact, understand that criminals behind bars have a lot of trouble harming the general public. Though I think the concern is more that people behind bars who don’t pose a threat to the general public shouldn’t have their liberty taken from them.

As I read this, the GOP platform is really that people either have a family in place that makes them good people, or the cops will be waiting for them.

Way to ratchet up the parenting stakes.

The most troubling part of the convention for these purposes is the explicit enthusiasm for prison, punishment, and blame. As Chris Christie’s speech made pretty clear, a prosecutor’s primary skill is tearing someone down. Judging by the convention, the GOP thinks this skill is one that America needs to see employed more.

This morning, the police shot an unarmed man who was lying on the street with his hands up. Hillary Clinton is not in prison. And the Republican Party thinks that only one of these is a problem.

Matt Kaiser is a white-collar defense attorney at KaiserDillon. He’s represented stockbrokers, tax preparers, doctors, drug dealers, and political appointees in federal investigations and indicted cases. His twitter handle is @mattkaiser. His email is mkaiser@kaiserdillon.com He’d love to hear from you if you’re inclined to say something nice.

Topics

, , , , ,