Harvard Charlie's Crime Plan

In the time not so honored tradition of actually looking at a candidate's policy proposals, I'd like to take a minute to studiously consider Harvard Charlie's Crime Package.

To see it for yourself----
http://charlieross.com/media/070529A.pdf

First of all, you'd think a guy with a Harvard Law degree would be a little more astute regarding what actually works. This doesn't. It's all big dog "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" talk. None of this is based on good policy research. I did some to check this out. And while I can't find a single set of homogonous statistics because the methodologies vary, I'm aggregating several different numbers from peer reviewed academic studies. If you'd like to check my sources, email me.

There are two thrusts to this plan-
1. Put more people in jail and keep them there.

Studies show that it's not possible. There aren't enough beds in enough prisons. While some states do manage to enforce the mandatory sentencing guidelines, they can't build prisons fast enough to keep up with demand. Something about prisons costing money nobody wants to allocate. Go figure. So instead they turn to "low residency programs" like RID and house arrest. IE- Same number of criminals on the street, higher number of felons.

2. Spending money on infrastructure.

He wants to hire more DA's, spend more money on the crime lab and the Bureau of Narcotics, and a database that helps law enforcement officials track down the accused. In principle these are good ideas. Increasing capacity typically increases quality and output. Put he couches these ideas specifically in terms of catching folks who are involved in the drug trade. This isn't the place to argue the legality/constitutionality/inherent bias of drug trafficking laws. It is however, a good place to talk about a Republican's 2nd favorite subject: The Free Market.

Drug traffick, like all commercial traffick, is dictated by the market. There's a cash flow involved. It's an economy. There is a demand for X quantity of Perry County SlimFast (my favorite euphemism for Meth). And while there is X demand, there will be a corresponding Y supply. Catching, prosecuting, and then permanently imprisoning those who supply the market does not diminish demand. Supply corresponds to Demand. Not the other way around. Remember the Raspberry flavored Pepsi? You could get it at gas stations for a quarter. Nobody wanted it. Supply can exceed demand.

If you want to curb drug related crimes, diminish demand. You invest in prevention, treatment, and education. It's hard. It's not as easy as a nine second sound byte that scratches the itch of those who still think an eye for an eye is sound social policy. Harvard Charlie knows better. He's pandering here.