| |
We’ll chalk up public safety
policy as philosophical difference
By Rep. Kirk Pearson
I found the Tacoma News
Tribune’s recent editorial, “Crime-fighting bill must not die in House,”
very unbalanced. House Republicans were working on the felon reentry
issue long before the firestorm began in January. In fact, I sent a
detailed letter to Secretary of Corrections Harold Clarke in December
2006. I asked specific questions of the department for the purpose of
writing legislation to fix the known failures in the felon supervision
system.
Given that background, your editorial was wrong to suggest House
Republicans want to “make hay” where public safety is concerned. Rather,
we’re making promises to the people of this state to do all we can to
protect them and their loved ones.
First, on the sheer logistics of the felon reentry plan your editorial
supports, I have one question: If the Department of Corrections (DOC)
can’t handle the current system for felon reentry, how on earth will it
handle the more complex system in the bill you support?
I have serious doubts whether the staffing levels of the DOC or the
structure of the proposed reentry strategy will allow for better
monitoring or better results. It seems to me that the system now is
incredibly simple and the proposed one is exceedingly complex – in light
of recent reports of abysmal failures in our state’s corrections
department, I wonder if the public believes the DOC is up for more of a
challenge or less.
Next, House Republicans believe in meaningful consequences for crime and
criminals – not only with felon reentry but a host of other issues.
We supported tougher penalties for metal thieves. In fact, we offered an
amendment to the metal theft bill to increase penalties to include the
damage done to property during the commission of the crime.
We introduced and co-sponsored legislation that would increase penalties
for eluding a police officer and jeopardizing innocent bystanders’ lives
in the process.
We co-sponsored the bill, with strong Democrat support, to align
penalties for veteran car thieves with the serious and costly nature of
the crime.
And, we authored several bills that would crack down on felons violating
the terms of their early release/community supervision and overhaul the
DOC’s failing felon supervision system.
Your paper can paint House Republicans with a broad brush as seizing
upon just one issue, such as the felon supervision debacle, but that’s
clearly not the case.
We believe the people of this state are tired of criminals getting off
scot-free or with a slap on the wrist. I would challenge that your
readers agree with House Republicans – the punishment should fit the
crime and criminals should be held accountable.
Legislators fully understand the impact of our votes on public safety.
Just one bill weakening our laws that lets one criminal fall through the
cracks and harm or murder someone is too many. You know, Secretary of
Corrections Clarke said something to the effect that we should put bad
people in jail, but we shouldn’t put people in jail because we’re mad at
them. I say, if someone harms an innocent person, the victim is going to
be mad and the criminal should be punished, not coddled.
When considering radical changes to the criminal justice system, which
may be popular at the time, we must be careful and thoughtful in the
approach. Most important, we must put leaders in place who can handle
the difficult charge of keeping the public safe.
As Republican leader on public safety I will continue to advocate
measures that hold accountable both criminals and the criminal justice
system charged with keeping the public safe. Accepting the culture of
failure of this state’s leaders, particularly in the felon community
supervision program, is not something I am willing to do.
Let’s chalk it up to a philosophical difference.
# # #
|
|