CRIME

When we discuss crime, we are really discussing the system that is required to manage the underside of our population. Our criminal justice system needs to be reformed to reflect the reality of Rhode Island.

Criminal punishment for social infractions is the job of the state. As a fair and just society, we are often seen to be pampering of the criminal element, however, even giving up those positions, it is evident that there are some simplistic reforms that could be made to eliminate danger to the public, realistically manage the criminal population, and reduce costs to society.

We are often told of crime rates rising or falling, but those statistics rarely give a true picture of the present. A zero percent increase in murder in a high murder rate city is not an accomplishment, yet the statistics are bantered about as though they have real meaning.

What has more meaning to criminal statisticians is the population’s numbers in terms of men between the ages of 18 to 30, the rate of unemployment and other societal statistics. These statistics are now being more and more applied in a gender neutral sense, encompassing women in that same age group. These are the real predictors as opposed to historical markers.

Crimes are more likely to occur in certain determinable populations. Crimes are more likely to occur when there is a larger concentration of young males. Crimes are more likely to occur where there is drug traffic due to the societal desire to prohibit various modes of conduct concerning drug use. Property crimes and murder are more likely perpetrated by people in the same neighborhood or family. It really isn’t brain surgery. There are clear trends in criminology that we continue to ignore when setting legislative policy.

Perhaps the best starting point to get a sense of how this problem came to be, we need to look to our do-good legislators. In an attempt to show the public just how tough they were on crime, they generally criminalized a host of behaviors that gave them political points. Drugs, a traditional whipping boy for law and order types, along with prostitution accounts for much of the crime that occurs in Rhode Island. Our prison populations across the nation are filled with 20 to 25 percent of people serving for drug related offenses. We fill our courts with these criminals. We give them a record, make them less likely to get gainful employment, re-arrest them for more drug use or sales, or worse a breaking and entering charge. Eventually, after clogging the courts for eight or ten occasions, they are incarcerated, only to be released early.

The cycle creates employment in the police-court-prison system, but is it truly serving the best interests of the people, creating employment disincentives in the communities that traditionally serve up drug and prostitution convicts?

We need to put a priority system in place. Violent offenders should not be tolerated. Convicts with firearms should be prosecuted relentlessly and, if convicted, made to serve out their full sentence. Convicted rapists and child molesters should be put away from society rather than use some system of registration. If they are in prison, we know where they are.

What needs to occur is a complete review of the crimes and the sentences that are attached to them. By realistically prosecuting major crimes, by requiring realistic sentences, and by mandating that all sentences shall be served in or near full term, we are sending a message as to crime.

At present, we are not really sending a message other than our system is completely broken. We have people arrested only to let them back on the streets. We give light sentences to multiple offenders.

We need to stop crime. We need to punish offenders in a manner that teaches them that the laws of the state must be obeyed or a punishment needs to be inflicted. It is that simple.

It is too simplistic to say we need to build more prisons; the real response is that we should be housing the prisoners who are the most physically threatening to our social well being.

This does not mean that I advocate giving the non-violents a free pass in the legal system. They are still offenders and need to feel justice. We could utilize creative sentencing for these types of matters. What is wrong with allowing a modified release program to only those fully paid back restitution and are willing to pay the state to monitor them? Such a system would be equally applied to all not convicted of a crime of violence. It is really the predatory types that physically injure people that we need to keep from law abiding citizens. It is all about a reasoned focus.

Rapists and child molesters are given light sentences and then let out on parole only to try to enforce some crazy system of sex offender registration. If the crime is as outrageous as the public deems, then it should be punished accordingly. The registration after the fact is both illogical and a legislative effort aimed to placate voters in light of the fact that it was the legislative sentencing mandates that were easy on these offenders in the first place.

This is not a platform to advocate that we need to abolish punishment for drug offenses or outside prostitution or other largely victimless crime. What we need to do is look at the criminal justice system as one would administer any other triage operation.

There are priorities. There are sound policies related to crime. But, there is the politician who cannot resist the temptation to overly criminalize behaviors. Still, as any parent can tell you, no matter how many rules you make, unless you enforce them in a quick, efficient and fair manner, all the rules are worthless.

We need to focus punishment efforts on murder, sex crimes and other crimes of violence. Then we need to focus on property crime. And then we can work with the niceties of other petty offenses.

There is a significant distinction that needs clarification here. Focus on punishment is distinct from policing. In policing efforts, every little crime should be treated as a priority. It is how we punish these crimes that is in need review.

It is understood that many police departments use the arrest on the smaller charges to attack what they see as a larger offender. But this approach is not really policing but instead is a created justification to remove people from the streets who have been released by an inadequate punishment system. It may look like good on the arrest sheets, but the realistic part of the equation is that it inefficiently uses the system.

While I understand that it is not the police officer’s duty to question the law, it is the politician’s job. The police are merely carrying out the idiotic policy created by the legislature (not denying the argument that the number of criminal defense attorneys in the legislature makes certain that crime pays).

Given the structure of our criminal system, we are not doing justice to the perpetrators and we are surely not doing justice for the taxpayers who pay for this system of utter foolishness.

By having realistic sentences and enforcing those sentences according to the terms of their imposition, we can operate a more efficient system that would have a clearly defined system of punishment. The Romans would clearly state punishments for various crimes. If you did the crime, you knew you would do the specified time. Today, with creative sentences and shortened sentences, there is no sense of deterrence. Quite frankly, no one really knows what a sentence will be, but most will be unrealistic – some being too lenient with others being too draconian, neither with a rational relationship to the actual crime committed.

There is no reason for society to tolerate criminals in its free population. We have institutions for a reason and we should apply reason in using them. I am not against spending money to build and operate prisons, so long as the prison system is working to its highest efficiency and effectiveness.

In the future I hope to discuss how to better utilize tax dollars appropriated to the courts and the criminal justice system. I hope to further discuss the relationship between crime predictors and the way we police our state. And, I want to expand on the need to restructure our system to maintain real law and order at minimal cost and with fairness.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Property taxation is taxation on ownership. It is favored by States in that it taxes something that is largely unmovable. Land, houses, cars, business inventory are all property that is susceptible to this type of taxation.


Rhode Island has made efforts to reduce these types of taxes, having reduced car taxes and inventory taxes, but it is still far too reliant on the property taxation mechanism to fund local government and education.


Suburban communities largely support their education through local property taxes. Urban areas, probably due to their strength in the Legislature, have an extraordinary large portion (if not all) paid for by the State through various other taxes, much of which is from residents of suburbia.


Urban centers argue that they provide some nebulous off-set to the people who live outside the city and therefore, they deserve this education money in that they are using their property tax base to fund the basic operation of the cities. Interesting argument but not so clear cut.


Cities are terrible in controlling a purse and as such, these education “subsidies” are really bandages for mismanagement of city government and its labor relations. The reason why property taxation hurts is that it is not properly applied.


As I have written in the past, much of the property tax burden should be shifted through a statewide education employee contract negotiated by the General Assembly before adjournment in election years. My proposals that were submitted in legislation in the 2007 session, would allow local taxation to be used for no more than 10% of the operational budget with a cost of living increased pegged to set rate.


Given the nature and make up of the Assembly, it died. Not even Mayor Cicillini, a supposed advocate of a statewide teacher contract to eliminate property taxes, came to testify. While he claims that he favors such a system, such talk is mere talk. He would never take a stand that would upset any chance of support from the teacher unions. Who is he kidding?


Property taxation to fund education is no longer a viable funding source. It can barely handle the payment for local government. The costs related to poorly negotiated contracts for public service, especially in their generous nature in retirement benefits and pensions, have created a nightmare by having delayed the cost of government. These local bodies have obligated the taxpaying base of the community to decades of future costs just because they preferred current placating of interests during their administrations.


But it is not all local blame. The General Assembly and its leadership are well versed in governmental buck passing. By the use of unfunded state mandates, the Assembly requires by law certain actions. The locals, forced to fund, increase the taxes. The State then says they want local property tax relief and that communities could re-negotiate contracts (knowing the most are not up for renegotiation and not giving the locals authority to force re-opening of such contracts). It is a somewhat sophisticated game of three card monte, little more.


As early as my first campaign for Governor in 1986 I advocated for the need to reform the property tax system. Then, it was an observation of an impending train wreck. Now, the train is approaching the stalled vehicle and there is little chance that anyone will escape unscathed. The sad part of my political efforts is that by not getting elected, the only option for me is to demonstrate how I had the foresight to govern, if only I had been given the chance.


Property taxation is an easy to implement tax that doesn’t require any heavy lifting by the elected officials. When imposing a tax increase, the locals simply throw up their hands and say that they are strapped by the Legislature. The Legislature can point fingers at the locals. Meanwhile, both are guilty of failing to address the basic foundation of the problem.


To minimize the property tax system requires real legislative leadership. If, for example, the education funding were the responsibility of the state, it would most likely be raised by income taxation. That said, the Legislature would be required to work much harder to make Rhode Island friendly for economic development. It would force the Legislature and the Governor to actually work for Rhode Islanders. It is often harder to light a candle than to complain about the darkness.


Property taxes discourage economic development, especially when the state must compete with other states that do not have such taxation. Why would a business person, acutely aware of expenses, locate a business in a place where it needed to pay a yearly tribute to the city or town in order to locate a business there? Business people do not get rich by being stupid.


Rhode Islanders want provincial governance and so they maintain 39 cities and towns in the smallest state. Okay, but if that is what you want, you must suffer the tradeoffs. This peculiarity of Rhode Islanders is an embracement of inefficiency, but it is arguable. But the enhancement of such an ineffective system of governance should not be tolerated. We know it denies us the ability to purchase everything from labor to toilet paper in bulk. We know it creates a multiplication of efforts in having 36 to 39 of everything. Fine, but why should this be allowed to grow?


Since the education budget impacts most communities the hardest, it needs to be addressed first in any effort to minimize property taxation. Local property tax caps, such as those passed by the General Assembly, need to be implemented without exception. These caps are traditionally put in place only to be exceeded by exception or exemption or court order related to a labor contract. Why bother with the caps if they are not mandatory in any significant manner? If the General Assembly were serious, it would have declared that any contract of the city or town that created a cap violation was void under law. It would make the cap meaningful, but that is not what the union lap-dog Legislature wanted to accomplish.


In future discussions of property taxation, I intend to demonstrate the need to address the education budget aside from local property taxes in a meaningful manner, I will also discuss the operation of a local budget that creates inefficient, albeit politically expedient, government, and I will look at how the state could allow more effective local government instead of encouraging wasteful spending.

TRANSPORTATION

It often takes a tragedy to force people to focus on what should be in the forefront. Such is often the case when it comes to transportation issues. Almost all Rhode Islanders use some form of transportation in their daily existence, yet they leave it to others to ensure its safety and maintenance.

Rhode Island’s transportation infrastructure, for lack of a better word, sucks. According to some surveys, Rhode Island ranks last in quality of its roads. Its drivers are frequently amongst the lowest in terms of operator safety. Rhode Island’s bridges have seen their share of neglect. Our public transit system, which really is little more than a public bus line, is frequently crying for more funding. The gasoline tax used for roads is among the highest in the country. And we are just getting warmed up.

As is usually the case in any exploration of a public issue, we must first state the problem, and before we can consider realistic solutions, we have to understand just how we arrived at this point of distress.

Much of the problem dates back into the onset of Rhode Island’s reliance on roadways. There are two parts to roadways. The initial laying of the road and the maintenance of the road once it is there. Both have been a bane to the taxpayers of Rhode Island.

Early road construction, often lacking any real engineering oversight due to favorable government treatment, has produced a foundation that often demands repair. The basic under-surface of a road will determine whether or not it can sustain frost heaves and other natural abuse. People often point to New Hampshire’s roads in a comparison with Rhode Island’s pot hole laden streets. For my money, I will bet the road bed difference is the key.

But, Rhode Island, being far more urban than New Hampshire, has other matter with which it must contend. Due to the urbanization, our secondary highways are highly traveled. In addition, we utilize in-ground utilities that course through the middle of our roadways. The aging utility infrastructure is often in need of repair and in turn, results in a pock-mocked highway.

Rhode Island could easily solve the later problem by merely putting more engineering enforcement into the utility cuts. Repairs that have sunk or result in other deficiencies could be charged against the utility making the road cut. How hard is that?

As for the restructuring of the road bed, that is far more arduous. It is unlikely that we can rip up most of our main roads without tremendous cost or inconvenience. This means that we need to improve the methods of maintenance and learn from our earlier mistakes in awarding state contracts.

Rhode Islanders in general, and their leadership in specificity, are short-sighted when it comes to infra-structure issues. They frequently vote for bonds to finance the efforts, but fail to actively evaluate whether that spending has been put to good use.

Take for example the I-Way project. Yes, it will free up some city space that could make a nice profit for some investors in the area, but the project is expected to do little, if anything, to alleviate the traffic congestion that has plagued the 95-195 intersection for decades. Your transportation dollars at work.

You see, for years Rhode Island government, in conjunction and with the support of the labor unions, have lobbied the public for these projects. For labor the benefits are obvious. For government officials, the benefits are more subtle and less apparent, but still there.

By using highway funds, Rhode Island government is less on the hook to create other types of employment. Political support for such projects often results in campaign support or donations, or both. The hand washing hand approach, typical of Rhode Island politics, is a great motivation.

Every recent Governor has had an on-going transportation “wish list” that delineates various projects. That list is compiled to enable the state to access federal highway funds, but it is not always prioritized according to need. Who wants a shirt for Christmas when you could get an Ipod? It is that basic.

But, back to the earlier discussion, Rhode Island is now faced with servicing what it hath wrought. It is not glamorous to put tax money into fixing what exists. For the most part, it is not seen and cannot be related to the public as an “accomplishment” during a politician’s term in office. “I built this new bridge” provides far more political capital than “I made sure there were fewer pot holes on Route 138”. And therein lies the problem. The electorate prefers candidates that build new bridges.

A realistic transportation plan for Rhode Island should prioritize maintenance. A realistic transportation plan should seek to leap frog technology. For example, when I first visited Uruguay, the people there had few telephones. Land lines, made of copper wire, were both expensive to install in a largely rural nation and often susceptible to theft. Few rural areas had reliable in-home telephones. Today, most Uruguayans have a telephone – a cellular telephone. In short, they have leap-frogged in terms of technology. It is this type of thinking that I would expect in our transportation planning. To build not for today, but for tomorrow should be our objective.

As a small state with population centers existing in clusters, it is almost unforgivable to think that we do not have a viable system of public transportation that would encourage use by all segments of the society. Large urban centers in the United States, and most world class cities elsewhere, have strong public transportation systems. In Buenos Aires, for example, there are inexpensive taxis. In London, there is the tube. In Japan, there is a reliable, clean, albeit overcrowded, subway system. Here, we continue to blindly rely on our personal automobile.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating the abandonment of the auto. I am, however, advocating the limited use of that auto. It can be done, but it needs to have a committed effort on the part of government and the people. I personally find occasion to use the public bus system, but I know that I would utilize it far more often if it met my needs. If the bus had a greater frequency, I would use it more often, but to provide a greater frequency, there must be more riders. It creates the famous catch 22 of public transportation, but it is real.

Still, we fail to attempt to solve the problem and wish for better public transportation whenever the price of gasoline goes up. Light rail projects are frequently topics of discussion, but it all stops there. We need to look to where we need to be 20 years from now instead of where we are today. Until we do that, Rhode Island’s transportation problem will continue to exist.

In subsequent discussions of transportation I will discuss the relation of transportation to taxation, the use of alternative transportation modes, and the concept of clustering for better management of transportation and land. I will likely culminate this effort by an overview that reviews Rhode Island’s transportation spending in light of the points made in earlier blogs.

EDUCATION

Aside from social spending, Education is one of the more costly endeavors of state and local government. Rhode Islanders are generous in the amount of taxation that goes to educating our youth. Yet, while we consistently spend liberally on education, we find that our education dollars are not purchasing the education we expect.

I always approach education issues from the point of view of socio-demographics. As a licensed teacher, holding my first Masters degree in Education (Boston University) and having done my Ph.D course work (Columbia University) in the field of Comparative Education, along with my years of service as the Chairperson of the Warren School Committee, I feel fairly well versed in education issues.

What my training and experiences have taught me is that all education relates to the socio-demographics, end of story.

If a child is from an affluent two parent family that values education, the child’s likelihood of success is almost absolutely certain. There is a stable education program for the child. The family values an education and intellectual achievement. There is no concern related to finances (health care, food, housing). There is a positive peer group among the other school children. Affluent parents tend to have a more extensive vocabulary, are less reliant upon television as a means of amusement, and have expendable wealth for cultural enhancements.

A child from less fortunate circumstances presents greater challenges to educators. This does not mean that this child is unable to attain an education, but it does mean that the system needs to look at the child and make appropriate adjustments to make education a success.

American education’s history presents itself as being the smoking gun as to how we got to where we are today. Worldwide, education systems vary, but are generally categorized along two distinct lines: the American style system and the French style system.

The American system allows for greater freedom granted to the instructor as to lesson plans and classroom management. The French system is designed to have every classroom in the entire system to be on the same page on the same day. The latter does not allow for the “creative” and “variety” enjoyed by American style instruction methods.

As is often the case in education, there is no right or wrong answers, but that does not mean that the issue avoids analysis. Later, these two distinct styles will be explored as to their relevance to Rhode Island education, but for now it is sufficient to realize the difference.

American education, largely under the guidance of social innovators such as Henry Barnard and others, was designed to be a public school system. This concept was furthered by John Dewey’s views on education in post-World War II America. Dewey had argued for pragmatic education. America embraced this and started various programs of education to allow for such innovations as guidance counseling and industrial/vocational education.

These concepts, however, were somewhat perverted in their application. The labor unions, reluctant to relinquish control over the ancient apprentice system, crippled much of these efforts related to vocational training. Additionally, the need to have every student to be “college bound” has made a mockery of such alternative education programs.

To approach education from a perspective that everyone will be an eventual college graduate is a misdirected effort. As such, education efforts with a single track focus have done a great disservice to education and to those funding education. It is both incapable of success and difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

Since the 1950’s the suburbs have attracted the more affluent families in their flight from the cities. This leaves the urban areas to struggle with the problems related to the less fortunate, and as such, relates directly to the urban education system.

For purpose of example, let’s consider a typical urban student in relation to a typical suburban student from a statistical perspective. The child is likely from a family at or below poverty level. The child is more likely to be from a single parent family. There is a greater likelihood of having more siblings than his or her suburban counterpart. There is a far greater likelihood of school movement due to the rental nature of the family. There is less likelihood that his or her parent(s) has advanced education degrees. There is far less of a support system available to this child.

Affluent families are likely to have advanced degrees. As such, they speak proper English and correct their children when they speak improperly. These children also avail themselves to the benefit of a peer group that comes from a similar background. I usually offer this as an example: When I was a child, I grew up in a blue collar/factory worker family. I did not know the distinction between the proper use of “good” and “well” until I went off to college. A similar child from an affluent family would not be allowed to say “He did good”, but that type of language goes unchallenged in a less educated household.

What difference does this make?, you may ask. The answer is that when it comes time to test for basic language ability, to the one that has been forced to speak properly, the answer comes naturally. To the uncorrected speaker, to get the proper answer requires a thought process to choose the correct answer. Multiply this a few thousand-fold and you can understand the greater difficulty that faces those on the lower levels of the socio-demographis scale.

The one true predictor of education success throughout the world is the education level of the father (in the U.S. it is of the parents due to the enhanced role of women in the society). It is not brain surgery and it is not one hundred percent reliable, but I would venture to guess it is probably 95% reliable.

Armed with this knowledge, how can anyone justify the Rhode Island system of education and expect that it would successfully serve its residents? Instead of attempting to ignore the socio-economic differences in an attempt to implement an egalitarian “feel-good” we are all equal policy, Rhode Island should focus on applying this acquired knowledge to create a positive education environment.

There are some simple solutions. Why should the Rhode Island Department of Education allow for an American style curriculum to be taught in urban areas? Since children in urban systems frequently move from one school to another, usually within the urban areas, why not use a French style curriculum in the urban centers? If a child moves to another school, the lesson is consistent with the one he or she just left behind. Not only is it logical, it is a change that would require little or no funding increase, yet it could provide significant improvement in the school performance of our urban youth.

Education has frequently been misused to implement social policy. We do not value academic excellence, but instead we reward the mediocre. We somehow feel that we need to abandon education goals that reward scholarship and use the system toward a more egalitarian end. If you abandon logic and reason, you are educating for “feelings” and not for “intelligence”.

By confusing these we blur the mission of education. Realistically, if the government were to call what passes for education today “indoctrination”, it would be far more accurate.

Our government leaders have realized that the school system is the easiest method to tap every member of the society. Most have a minimal contact with the schools, and therefore, it became the foundation to implement social policy in place of academics.

Schools serve breakfasts and lunches. They provide psychological counseling. They teach sex education. They provide suicide prevention services. The schools are centers for health programs. They provide after-school daycare services.

In short, schools have absorbed the role of the parent. The state is now the family. American’s criticized this exact behavior of the Soviet communist state a mere fifty years earlier and yet they pushed headlong into adopting this model for itself. This has done little other than entrench the reach of the state but has also accelerated the decline in the family and social support systems.

All this education philosophy aside, Rhode Island also faces a problem related to the funding of this system of so-called “education”. Rhode Island relies on property taxation for the greater part of the funding of suburban schools. Through state taxation, these suburbanites also fund the bulk of the education efforts in the urban areas. This system is both unfair and illogical.

I have advocated on many occasions to have a statewide teacher and education labor contract, negotiated by the General Assembly before adjournment on election years. This system would also shift the burden (90%) to income taxation and away from the property taxation that plagues the state.

In the future I will discuss the relationship between education and taxation, but in order to understand the financial aspects of education, we first have to understand the rationale behind our education efforts and that is why we start here.

In the future I will articulate some education aims that are obtainable through small changes in the system. I will also discuss the role of organized labor in the education process.

In the future I will also define a plan to make Rhode Island’s education system perform to a level that both services the population and meets the needs of the society in terms of economic development and taxation.

WHEN RESPONDING TO A BLOG, PLEASE NOTE THE BLOG NUMBER SO THAT PROPER REFERENCE CAN BE MADE.

To the reader:

In an effort to fully explore all the issues that may be relevant to the 2010 gubernatorial election, I have decided to utilize this blog to write a weekly statement related to state issues. Since it is a blog, I will also personally respond to comments and questions related to the topic.
For the next 170 weeks or so, I will comment, on a rotating basis, on the following topics:

EDUCATION
TRANSPORATION
PROPERTY TAXATION
CRIME
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
ENVIRONMENT
LABOR
THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
HIGHER EDUCATION
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
WELFARE
ELECTIONS
STATE TAXATION
HEALTH CARE
GAMBLING
LOCAL GOVERNANCE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SERVICES
IMMIGRATION – STATE ROLE
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
ENERGY
OPEN GOVERNMENT
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THE BUDGET
THE FUTURE OF RHODE ISLAND

Your comments will always be welcomed and suggestions will be considered. If we are to make Rhode Island work for the people, the people must want Rhode Island to work.
I urge you to read this and seek out any inconsistencies in my positions. I have written extensively on these issues in both the 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the 1986 effort. The 94 and 98 documents are found on this web site for reference. The 86 documents were not as extensive, but should also be consulted.
If nothing else, this site will allow for people to consider and respond to issues of state governance.
Robert J. Healey, Jr.
Candidate for Governor 2010