Washington's misdirected efforts at curbing crime.

• Author: Niskanen, William A.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act violates basic constitutional principles and allocates economic resources ineffectively.

CONGRESS, in a frenzy of competitive machoism and with little regard for the Constitution or common sense, passed another crime bill. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 substantially federalized criminal law, increased sentences for a wide range of crimes, banned some semiautomatic rifles, and authorized about $30,000,000,000 in additional spending for police, prisons, and a range of exotic social programs. A major premise of the act, for which there is little evidence, is that more police and prisons would reduce crime. A minor premise, for which there is even less evidence, is that Federal grants for everything from sensitivity training to midnight basketball also would do so. The act is an outrage for a number of reasons.

* Some of its provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and the historical limits on the powers of the Federal government. The Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993 summarizes the constitutional perspective: "The U.S. Constitution reserves general police powers to the States. By act of Congress, Federal offenses include only offenses against the U.S. Government and against or by its employees while engaged in their official duties, and offenses which involve the crossing of State lines or an interference with interstate commerce."

This act, however, establishes Federal penalties form murders and for a wide range of other crimes already subject to state law. Moreover, it substantially reduces the discretion of state judicial officers by making the new grants for prisons conditional on a state law that violent criminals serve at least 85% of their sentence and by establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses. The premise on which Congress asserted those powers is that crime is a nationwide crisis and that guns, drugs, and criminals move across state lines. On that basis, no area of American life is immune to a similar assertion of Federal Powers.

* Some provisions are an abuse of civil liberties. In cases involving sexual assault or child molestation, the rules of evidence are hanged to permit evidence on the defendant's prior behavior. Juveniles convicted of violent crimes or serious drug offenses are to be subject to an additional sentence of up to 10 years if they are members of street gangs. Aliens convicted of an "aggravated felony" are to be denied a deportation hearing.

* Some provisions are counterproductive. A Federal death penalty is established for four crimes not involving murder; that may be unconstitutional. A third conviction for a serious offense not involving murder is punishable by life imprisonment, a longer sentence than for most murders. Such strengthening of the penalties for less heinous crimes reduces the incremental penalty for more heinous crimes.

* The ban of 19 types of semiautomatic rifles is purely symbolic, and also may be unconstitutional, The banned rifles are not functionally different from hundreds of still-legal rifles, the aggregate of which is used in about one percent of crimes involving a gun. No one contends that this ban will cut the crime rate. The ban is contended hotly, primarily because its supporters hope and its critics fear that it will serve as precedent for a broader ban of semiautomatic rifles.

* Most of the social programs financed by the act (about one-third of the total funding) are likely to be worth less than their cost. Few, if any, would be approved if subject to a stand-alone vote, and most of the funds are to be spent for activities with only a token relation to crime prevention. Larry Sherman, dent of the Crime Control Institute, describes the programs as "untested drugs. Nobody has evaluated any of these ideas to see whether they are safe and effective." Advocates should plain why an explosion of similar programs since 196b has not slowed the crime rate.

* Finally, the 1994 act is unnecessary. Crime is a nationwide issue, but does not require a national solution. More...