EMBRACE NEW THINKING ON CRIME

America's streets have become much safer over the past decade, but it's
hard to discern that from the speeches of the presidential candidates. The
unprecedented drop in crime has rippled through every corner of the
country. Murder fell by almost one-third between 1993 and 1999, and other
violent crimes dropped by 34% to the lowest point since the 1960s.

Despite a small but disturbing new spike in the homicide rate in Los
Angeles and other major cities, the otherwise steady decline of crime is
cause for enormous relief and reflection. It also presents an opportunity
for fresh thinking in Washington about how we deal with criminals and how
best to prevent crime.

Yet, for the most part, George W. Bush and Al Gore are sticking to an old
script, heavy on punishment, far too light on rehabilitation and
prevention. Still, there are differences between the candidates and enough
time left in this campaign for each to discuss more clearly how to preserve
and extend the gains in public safety that the past few years have brought
and to commit to correcting the inequities in our criminal justice system
that erode its integrity.

Guns: Tougher limits on gun possession could go far toward preventing
violence, and on this issue the differences between Gore and Bush are sharpest.

Bush's pro-gun positions mirror many of those held by the National Rifle
Assn.; he insists the best gun control measure is tough prosecution of
those who illegally sell guns or use a gun during a crime. Since becoming
Texas governor, Bush has greatly liberalized state gun laws. Texas
residents who receive a state permit may now carry concealed weapons, even
in churches and hospitals.

Gore takes a more sensible tack. While he opposed tougher gun laws when in
Congress, the vice president now would require handgun owners to obtain a
state-issued license after passing a background check and safety test. He
supports a ban on so-called "junk guns" similar to that passed last year in
California, and he favors closing the gun-show loophole that has allowed
some handgun buyers to evade background checks.

Drug crime: Beginning during the 1980s, this nation's high-profile war on
illegal drug use has focused on stiff punishment rather than treatment.
Certainly there have been gains--the percentage of young people trying
drugs is down from the peaks of the 1980s--but the emphasis on
incarceration has produced extreme disparities that the next president
should correct. Federal drug-sentencing laws mandate minimum prison terms
depending on the type and amount of drug possessed: 500 grams of powder
cocaine, for example, means at least five years behind bars. Only five
grams of crack cocaine, essentially the same drug, brings the same
five-year sentence. But nowhere in the thick federal sentencing guidelines
is drug treatment mandated. One result of such policies is that a whopping
57% of all federal prisoners are drug offenders. Many are first-time
offenders with no history of violence. Most--nearly 75%--are African
American and Latino.

Neither Bush nor Gore has distinguished himself on this issue, retreating
instead to vague calls for more anti-drug education, tougher punishment and
treatment.

A good first step toward a more constructive drug policy would be to
eliminate the inequities in sentencing guidelines and increase treatment
options for federal offenders. Congress and President Clinton have been
reluctant, fearing the soft-on-crime tag. The next president must do better.

Youthful offenders and rehabilitation: While law enforcement is mostly a
state responsibility, the president can lead by urging states to reform
their treatment of juveniles and increase spending for rehabilitation.
Since 1992, 45 states, including California, have made it easier to
prosecute juveniles as adults. While judges in the juvenile system have
always had the authority to send particularly brutal or repeat young
offenders into the adult prison system, state legislatures have pushed to
give less-serious wrongdoers the same fate. By housing young people with
adult felons, states are giving these kids personal tutors for a life of
crime. A victorious Bush or Gore could help by using the bully pulpit and
federal block grants to encourage state officials to think as carefully
about rehabilitation for juveniles as they do about incarceration.

The death penalty: Bush and Gore strongly support the death penalty, but
growing concerns about its application should prompt better thought about
safeguards against executing the innocent. Most death row inmates are
state, not federal, prisoners. In many states--Bush's Texas is a
particularly shameful example--defendants without money often are
represented by indifferent or incompetent lawyers. Exculpatory evidence
omitted at trial is too often excluded from appeals. The next president
should make available federal funding to prod states into improving the
quality of capital defense counsel and providing DNA testing, where
appropriate.

The recent decline of crime allows an opportunity to make lasting inroads
against gun violence, drug abuse and juvenile crime. Instead, both
candidates fall back on tired--and expensive--answers that focus on
prosecution and incarceration. With the exception of Gore's leadership on
gun control, the candidates' unimaginative thinking on crime may waste a
chance for long-term gains in public safety that all Americans clearly want.