While crime and criminal justice policy often take center stage in election discussions, they don’t seem to be major concerns for voters in 2024. Polls indicate that only a small number of American citizens view crime as their top priority.
Nonetheless, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris express a strong commitment to addressing these issues. Trump and the Republican Party have highlighted concerns around illegal immigration, including claims about the crimes associated with immigrants.
On the other hand, Harris, as The Economist pointed out, is leveraging her background as a prosecutor in San Francisco to enhance her “tough-on-crime” credentials. She has connected her prosecutorial experience to topics like immigration, drug policy, and corporate misconduct.
As a scholar of crime and justice in the U.S., I recognize significant contrasts between the two candidates, each of whom has a complex and intriguing history related to these issues.
Kamala Harris: The Prosecutor
Harris has a long history in the criminal justice system, beginning her career in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in California in 1990, focusing on child sexual assault cases. She later served as the District Attorney of San Francisco from 2004 to 2010 and as California’s Attorney General from 2010 to 2017 before her election to the U.S. Senate.
According to Axios, during her tenure as District Attorney, violent crime in San Francisco initially increased steadily before declining by 15% in her final two years. As Attorney General, the violent crime rate in California dropped from 439.6 per 100,000 residents the year before she took office to 396.4 by 2014. However, it rose again to a high of 444.8 in 2016.
Throughout her time in both roles, Harris implemented several reforms in criminal justice policy. One notable initiative was “Back on Track,” which aimed to assist nonviolent drug offenders aged 18 to 30. The program promised that participants would have their charges expunged after meeting certain conditions, like a year of consistent employment and community service. It received positive feedback, especially from progressive circles.
Under her leadership, California’s approach to school truancy shifted focus to parents, threatening fines or imprisonment if they failed to ensure their children attended school. FactCheck.org noted that this led to a modest number of prosecutions, averaging three to six cases annually.
The Desert Sun in Palm Springs remarked that Harris gained a reputation for being tough on sexual abuse, human trafficking, and organized crime, showing no hesitation in pursuing incarceration when necessary.
Throughout her career, Harris has opposed the death penalty, pledging during her initial campaign for District Attorney that she would never seek a death sentence, regardless of the crime’s severity. While she upheld that commitment, she did defend death sentences issued by prior administrations while serving as Attorney General. The Los Angeles Times stated that her actions reflected the appropriate responsibilities of an attorney general, prioritizing her professional obligations over personal beliefs.
CNN characterized her stance on capital punishment as having “broken hearts on both sides.”
Donald Trump’s Presidency and Record
In contrast, Trump was a staunch supporter of the death penalty during his presidency. In March 2018, he instructed the Department of Justice to pursue capital punishment for drug traffickers and actively defended death sentences in court.
After an extended hiatus from federal executions, his administration carried out 13 in the last seven months of his term, according to ProPublica, marking the highest number of federal executions since Franklin D. Roosevelt and more than the previous ten presidents combined.
Trump’s administration also limited some criminal justice reform initiatives. For example, his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, halted efforts initiated by former President Barack Obama to end prison privatization and began issuing contracts for new private detention facilities.
Despite advocating for tough-on-crime measures, Trump showed inconsistencies during his time in office. In March 2018, he established the Federal Interagency Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry Council to explore how to provide better opportunities for former offenders, aiming to develop a comprehensive strategy addressing mental health, vocational training, job creation, and more.
The Biden administration later expanded on these initiatives.
Additionally, in December 2018, Trump endorsed the “First Step Act,” which garnered bipartisan support in Congress. This legislation funded programs to reduce recidivism among released prisoners through features like addiction treatment and job training.
During his presidency, Trump also commuted sentences for over 90 individuals and granted pardons to more than 140 others, a controversial use of clemency that included some of his associates, such as Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort.
Regarding crime rates during Trump’s presidency, the Dallas Morning News noted that violent crime per 100,000 residents decreased annually during his first three years. However, it spiked in 2020, albeit slightly lower than its peak year under President Obama.
Future of Crime and Justice Policies
The next president will face critical decisions regarding federal crime and justice policies, particularly concerning whether to favor reform or impose stricter penalties. They will also need to determine how to allocate federal funding and resources to support their objectives.
The contrasting records of Harris and Trump suggest they would approach crime and criminal justice issues with notably different philosophies and strategies.
