Crime and Punishment in 2025

Several weeks ago, President Trump ordered approximately 800 National Guard members to Washington, D.C., to combat crime. This is the first time in our nation's history that a president has declared overall crime an emergency; therefore, he took control of the city's police in a highly controversial manner. Additionally, many National Guard personnel are being stationed in touristy areas (and little crime areas), such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and Union Station. Crime did surge during the pandemic; however, violent crime is at a 30-year low. Indeed, crime remains a significant issue in D.C., as well as in many other American cities. As these troops were deployed in D.C. with all the controversy, it warrants a closer look at the criminal justice system, crime statistics, and why homicides and sexual assaults are still significant problems in the United States. To that end, I've tried to take an OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE on the complexity of crime statistics and the criminal justice system in 2025.  

During COVID, some left-leaning individuals started to chant "Defund the Police" across the nation. This damaged the Democrats' brand for a generation, even though it was just a small minority that chanted such a slogan. Former President Barack Obama said that it was one of the worst slogans of all time. He also suggested that right-wing news organizations like Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News will use this slogan to continue to smear left-wing Democrats as being soft on crime.

A lot of crime is unreported, so how would this fact fit into the crime picture? For example, many residents of San Francisco don't report car break-ins because they feel law enforcement will not investigate. How often does this occur when U.S. citizens don't report a misdemeanor or felony, knowing that nothing will happen as a result? If not reported, these crimes will not be part of crime statistics.

Trump has sent the National Guard to Washington, D.C., to fight crime. Is this legitimate, or is he merely abusing his power as the Commander-in-Chief? If Trump is going to target other cities with the National Guard, shouldn't he do some research and science to determine which cities have the highest homicide rate, for example? According to Wikipedia, the larger cities with the highest homicide rates for 2024 are (in order): Birmingham, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton, Kansas City, and Shreveport (Washington, D.C. is tenth). Logically, shouldn't he then target cities in Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio (twice), Missouri and Louisiana? Interestingly, seven of the top nine are in red states, but there's no mention of deploying the guard in Missouri or Alabama. But know, the chatter within the beltway says that he'll target Chicago next, even though it's ranked 22nd. Just to be clear, I'm not dissolving Chicago's crime; it's something that really needs to be addressed, but let's be honest, it shouldn't be the poster child for crime instead of these higher homicide rates in many other American cities. Even the friendly "red state" of Wisconsin has Milwaukee ranked at twelfth.

Another element that needs to be mentioned is how police officers should address the fact that strict enforcement of laws may be contrary to the wishes of city mayors and city officials. If mayors wish for the perception of crime to be low, how should you, as a police officer, respond? If you avoid politics altogether, your job might be at risk (which is awful considering that you're only doing your job).

From a public perception, serious crime is like inflation or unemployment. No matter what statistics political parties spin, it's the daily perception that matters. Once again, the Left is saying that crime is down (even if that were true), most Americans feel that crime is still a major social issue in this country. As a political party, Democrats need to get tougher on crime and address things that might help reduce crime. Downplaying the effects of crime is a losing strategy. If you're unsure about this, ask former President Biden about how the lack of border security during his tenure affected his 2024 re-election campaign.

Some say that crime is significantly down, but what should one think when cosmetic items are locked up in a drug store? Isn't this sending a mixed message? Is petty theft still commonplace? If so, then this type of crime isn't significantly down.

Although crime may be at a 25-year low, if many Americans are fearful of crime or are nervous about being impacted, those statistics are meaningless. People who live in areas where serious crimes do occur are still anxious about crime, so lower crime statistics aren't necessarily reassuring to them.

It appears to me that when republicans discuss crime, the same way they discuss immigration and the southern border, it's a way of examining the race issue without having to admit that they're talking about race.

I recently read that an individual caught a burglar who had broken into his home. He was able to follow him and get him apprehended several miles away. After the incident, this person still went through the criminal justice system but was told by a detective that there was not enough space in the jails to house nonviolent offenders. The offender may receive probation instead of jail or prison time. However, will this outcome deter the offender from burglarizing another home in the future?

The U.S. has the world's highest recidivism rate, so that three of the four incarcerated commit another crime once released. Scandinavian countries, such as Norway and Sweden, have lower recidivism rates (20 to 43% respectively). What's the key difference? In these countries, they invest in education, training, and integration services to help released inmates avoid a life of crime. Indeed, these programs are expensive, but they may be a worthwhile investment for the United States to consider, as the current system is not sustainable for significantly reducing our recidivism rates.

As many know, the Republican Party is tough on crime, or at least that's what they purport. As of 2024, about two million people are incarcerated in state or federal prisons and local jails in the United States. Additionally, more than five million people are under the supervision of the criminal justice system overall. With crowded prisons and jails, judges and prosecuting attorneys need to act accordingly. Said differently, if someone commits a serious crime and is a first offender, the prosecuting attorney, knowing the situation with crowded prisons, may just suggest probation instead of sending them to prison. When this occurs, how does the law serve as a deterrent to these offenders? What's the long-term effect?

Interestingly, our current president is a convicted felon who talks tough on crime, is the most corrupt administration in American history, and abused his pardon power by pardoning those who were convicted of breaching the U.S. Capitol. All the while, his administration states that American cities are disaster areas and need a law-and-order president to clean up the mess. To a thinking person, what's wrong with this picture? Can a law-and-order president who's a felon have the legitimacy to reduce crime in America?

The irony of deploying the National Guard on city streets can sometimes have a negative impact. With all this militaristic equipment, some think this is a military takeover, and some people are feeling afraid to go to church, and kids may be afraid to go outside. This deployment may not consistently achieve its intended goal.

Recently, the Trump administration has canceled grants to local jurisdictions in amounts exceeding $800 million. These grants were designed for violence prevention, support of law enforcement, and other justice-related programs. This is the funding local leaders say would reduce crime in the long term. Instead of arbitrarily deploying the National Guard in American cities, why not collaborate with governors and city leaders on targeted programs to address some of the root causes of criminal behavior? Otherwise, temporarily deploying troops in cities and then announcing that crime has been eliminated is what one would do if they weren't serious about addressing this social issue. Besides being lazy, it just appears to be a publicity stunt and nothing more.

If you catch more serious criminals, the annual statistics will show an increase in the crime rate. However, if first-time and repeat criminals are consistently punished, shouldn't the crime rate ultimately decrease? If a serious crime is not consistently reported for any reason, it will not be factored into the crime rate statistics. When this occurs, certain politicians or city leaders will say that we're doing a good job at fighting crime. In some cases, city mayors may tell public defenders to go easy on violent criminals, or convey to city detectives not to investigate specific crimes, because high crime rates affect the city's image. When this occurs, one could think of the axiom of "Statistics lie and liars use statistics." Statistics can be used to support disingenuous arguments – which means, overall, how accurate are crime statistics?  

Some individuals say that guns don't commit crimes, but people do. What an ignorant thing to say. Indeed, there are about 400 million guns in the United States, and how are we addressing this epidemic? Second Amendment absolutists say that all Americans can own a firearm, provided they've never committed a felony. Some states have passed strict gun control laws (for example, Illinois), but being so close to N.W. In Indiana (with more lax gun laws), these illegal guns flow across the border. We need nationwide and effective gun control legislation to address this social issue. If we ever get effective gun control passed nationally, then politicians will need to find effective enforcement (prisons are already crowded) to deal with these offenders.  

If sensible and strict gun control is not needed, then how would a person address the fact that guns kill more kids in America than any other cause? What is the republicans' response to this epidemic? Being unwilling to help support sensible and strict gun control. Instead, they're more interested in AR-15 bumper stickers, lapels in Congress, and some on the right sending Christmas cards with their entire family holding firearms (Thomas Massie, R-KY, Andy Ogles, R-TN, and Lauren Boebert, R-CO). What kind of message are they sending to all Americans? What about their constituents? And to their individual families?

Besides strict gun control, would better education, better mental health services, and community programs make a difference? Especially in midsize and large cities? If income inequality were addressed, would this make a difference? Who knows, but even if improved social programs don't significantly reduce crime, they do make a difference in lowering certain types of crime. Isn't that the sensible thing for our modern society to aspire to?

Crime and Punishment in 2025