The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission
Steven R. Donziger, ed. 
HarperPerennial: New York, 1996. 

Review by MC12

The National Criminal Justice Commission is a progressive though liberal group that produced this book to counter the pro-prisons, anti-"crime" mania sweeping Amerikan politics. The group includes some big names like law professor Derrick Bell, representatives of the NAACP and similar organizations from other oppressed nations.

The great service of the book is its concise publication of lots of important and recent information that anti-prison activists need. All the facts in MIM's Amerikkkan Lockdown Index (published in this issue of MIM Theory and available at MIM's Internet Web site) are from this book. If you need references to show that more police do not lower "crime" rates, or the details of bias in application of the death penalty, and so on, it's all there in accessible form. So, as a useful reference, MIM recommends this book (although much of the best information from it is in our Index). On the other hand, the book shows the pitfalls of liberal thinking, even when applied to a progressive cause such as opposing the prison system.

First, the writers repeatedly stress that they think violent criminals do belong in prison, and their criticism is only of the unfairness of the system and the hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders in prison. MIM agrees that there are some people who have committed crimes against the people for which they need to be held accountable, and they need to engage in extensive self-criticism and rectification. But much more important than that, for revolutionaries, is that the greatest criminals of all are not only not in prison--they run the government and economy! So given that fundamental fact of imperialism, MIM does not dwell on the need to lock up some of the people who happen to already be in prison. Suffice it to say that if the people came to power in North America, almost but not quite all of those people locked up in jail and prison would be released although some would have rectification to make; and some would stay behind bars until it was clear they no longer posed a threat to the people.

These people would undoubtedly be outnumbered in prison by imperialists and various agents of oppression and repression, who would themselves have bottomless debts to pay to the people. In fact, we could imagine self-criticism and rectification involving both street criminals and imperialist oppressors, in which street criminals were able to show the imperialists a thing or two to the benefit of both groups. In most cases we believe the street criminals would be more likely successfully engage in the work needed to join a socialist society than imperialists and other genuine oppressors; the latter group would find themselves opposed to the new system, while the former would be more interested in joining it.

Another major flaw with the book is its attempt to find better and worse ways for police and courts to reduce "crime," defined in the very narrow legal sense of the current system. They endorse "community policing," for example, and devote large sections of the book to "model" ways of reducing violence and "crime," such as alternative forms of sentencing. Some of these practices may be better for the oppressed than others, to be sure, but their emphasis is on reforming and saving a system that revolutionaries know is beyond such measures. With the very definitions of crime and violence controlled by the hegemonic bourgeoisie and its imperialist-system supporters, the very terms of the debate need to be overthrown before improvements can be made. Maoists may support some local practices as better than others, for example--and in some cases we actively work for reformist demands--but we only do so in the clear and explicit context of opposing the very system in which they operate.

The Commission produces a "Pathway to a Safer Society" with 11 recommendations. Some of these are progressive even though the motivation behind them are pro-capitalist. Good recommendations include a moratorium on building new prisons, and eliminating "racial and ethnic biases" in the system (uh-huh). Obviously either of these would be improvements.

On the other hand, reactionary recommendations include increasing economic efficiency of the criminal injustice system, developing broader anti-"crime" strategies combining all levels of government, reducing "poverty" (a goal MIM supports, but not for Amerikans at the expense of the victims of Amerikan imperialism, who are not mentioned), the collaboration of police and public health officials to reduce drug use problems, and so on. Without changing the terms of the debate, these proposals amount to developing greater levels of collaboration with the state for its repressive anti-"crime" ends--In other words movements toward fascism, even if in a less openly violent guise.

This book represents the better side of some liberalism--the ability to oppose state repression and blatant inequality imposed by the dominant groups in society. Readers of this book who like the analysis may very well be receptive to MIM's revolutionary arguments, especially when they hear the important criticisms of this type of political line. On the other hand, some supporters of this line will look at revolutionaries as "impractical," or as militants who want to replace one bad system with another--in other words, they may see MIM as raining on the liberal parade. These people are committed to the system and ultimately don't want to see it threatened.

Many progressives in North America, members of oppressed nations as well as some Amerikans, are coming to oppose the reign of prison terror here. MIM has been out front on this work for years, and we need to struggle with all revolutionaries and potential revolutionaries to make sure that such well-founded opposition leads to higher levels of struggle rather than sinking into the troughs of reformism.