County of Milwaukee Office of the Sheriff 35' Sheriff of the Year ru- David A. Clarke Jr. Sheriff Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association May 30, 2014 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers Chief Judge, First Judicial District Milwaukee County Courthouse 901 N. 9th Street, Room 609 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 The Honorable John Chisholm Milwaukee County District Attorney Safety Building 821 W. State Street, Room 405 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 Dear Judge Kremers and Mr. District Attorney: It is pointless to take up your time in the brief space of this letter, to rehash recent events (as well-known to every citizen in our county as they are to you), including the horrid, life?shattering wounding of 10-year?old Sierra Guyton, while she played steps from her home at 28th and Clarke streets. The swift arrest of the 18~year?old shooter by the Milwaukee Police Department was impressive police work. It appears they had a great deal of experience arresting Sylvester Lewis. They had arrested him over a dozen times, and even Wauwatosa police got in on the act. His criminal history includes Battery, Car Theft, Robbery, and Burglary. Now, he's added charges of ist Degree Reckless Injury, ist-Degree Recklesst Endangering Safety, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. He has had quite a rapid ?career? progression from his panhandling arrest of 2008. Service to the Community Since 1835 821 West State Street 0 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233-1488 414-278-4766 Fax 414-223-1386 - The Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers and John Chisholm Page Two May 30, 2014 I offer that this latest case is just the tip of the iceberg. In yesterday?s online edition of the Journal Sentinel, I saw that refuted: ?The reality is people want to try and take one isolated incident and then say see this demonstrates the flaws in the entire system." Yes, this case does demonstrate those flaws magnificently. It is the latest example of what has been for years, the result of what I (and a growing chorus of others) have labeled ?soft-on-crime? practices by the Milwaukee County District Attorney?s Office and the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. All the while, those same offices made rhetorical claims of just the opposite: claims of success and improvement. But let's see. Let?s fact?check the claims. I have used the term ?social engineering criminal justice experiments? in regards to the widespread practices in Milwaukee County, of deferred prosecutions, alternatives to incarceration, pied-down sentences and bargaining in exchange for guilty pleas, and imposed-and?stayed custodial sentences leading to probation. I employ that term because I see the majority of the offenders being returned to the most violent and downtrodden communities. But I table that language now, in making a request that you might both find enticing, as it may prove me wrong. I request the support and best efforts of both of your offices to temporarily suspend the use of deferred prosecutions, pled~down sentences in exchange for guilty pleas, read-in charges, and imposed-and?stayed custodial sentences, only as it relates to equivalent Part offenses, criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery by force or threat of force or violence, aggravated assault, burglary, felonious theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson, until a credible and independent study of the last five years of these decisions and tactics can be conducted and published. I do not make this request or frivolously. For years, I have been calling attention to what we have each seen to be some version of the oft-called ?revolving door? of our criminal justice system. In response, I have heard what I characterize as anecdotal claims of success. I also see the recidivism studies, such as last month's US. Department of Justice report, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, which showed 76.6% of offenders released, normed across 30 states, were re-arrested within five years of that release. So let?s look at our data. Or, rather, let?s have impartial academics look at it. Let?s agree to voluntarily and temporarily suspend these programs until credible criminal justice researchers, unbiased, and skilled in analysis, can conduct an honest, objective review. The researchers should not come from UW?Milwaukee, the Criminal Justice Council or Justice Point 2000, as they have assisted in either the design or implementation of Milwaukee County practices to date. Let?s find who will look at the recidivism The Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers and John Chisholm Page Three May 30, 2014 and crime levels following these interventions, and might, if we can also commission it, look at the regional costs of incarceration, extended supervision, stayed sentences and probation and parole, versus locking up Part offenders for longer periods of time. I had the opportunity to attend the Harvard Kennedy School, including coursework in a program entitled Senior Executives in State and Local Government. I am aware that HKS seeks opportunities to partner with agencies in academic inquiry such as I am suggesting. If you gentlemen are willing to join me by agreeing to place a moratorium on these practices, I am more than willing to reach out to HKS and start the ball rolling towards just such a study, including hosting the researcher. lwould, of course, welcome any suggestion that you gentlemen might have as to an alternative academic resource of similar stature. Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, offered this about social science, the human condition and its impact on proposed government programs. He said that despite confidently asserted empirical analysis, persuasive rhetoric, and claims of expertise, very few social?program interventions can be shown in controlled experiments to create real improvement in outcomes of interest. For example, various forms of intensive probation in which the offender is closely monitored but not incarcerated, in at least a dozen times, failed every test. In a Cambridge University criminology test, only four of the programs showed encouraging results. When further testing by independent research groups replicated the study, all failed to show consistent positive results. When it comes to experiments about reducing crime, the most promising results have not been shown to work reliably. When you go soft on crime, criminals are no longer afraid to reoffend. Incarceration does one thing extremely well: It reduces crime and its corresponding economic and costs and damage to neighborhoods, because when criminals are locked up they are not out committing more crimes. A Rand Corporation study estimated the cost of crime in the United States at $300 billion a year (2010). Comparing the cost of crime to what states spend on incarceration, communities are safer and taxpayers are still ahead by keeping career criminals behind bars. previously noted that in her 2012 keynote address to the National Institute of Justice Research Conference, Joan Petersilia, Professor of Law at Stanford University, and Faculty Co?Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, stated that of the 23 programs listed on the federal website for evidence-based, anti-recidivism programs, only one-mas to burglars in England?had been shown to work. Speaking of effective community-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration, Petersilia stated, ?We don?t have the models, we can?t replicate them, and if we can replicate them, we can?t scale them up.? I The Honorable Jeffrey A. Kremers and John Chisholm Page Four May 30, 2014 She may be wrong, as it relates to crime and punishment here in Milwaukee County. 80 may I. 80 may the proponents of deferred prosecutions, bargaining in exchange for guilty pleas, and imposed-and-stayed custodial sentences. I will leave it to you gentlemen to determine which group you belong to. But I think that having a stringent review of these practices in our region would reveal data that we all might find compelling. I look forward to your reply. David A. Clarke Jr., Sheriff Milwaukee County By hand-delivery