>>> TONIGHT, CRIME, PUNISHMENT, AND THE CASE FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.

IN HIS NEW BOOK, HE ARGUES RECENT REFORMS IN NEW YORK HAVE FAILED AND THE PEOPLE THOSE HAVE MEANT TO HELP ARE VICTIMS OF THE CURRENT RISE IN CRIME.

"METROFOCUS" STARTS RIGHT NOW.

♪ >>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS," WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD, AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

>>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

AND BY -- >>> GOOD EVENING AND, WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M RAFAEL PI ROMAN.

AFTER THE PROTESTS IN SUMMER OF 2020 SPARKED BY THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD, THE NARRATIVE THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES IS RACIALLY EUROPEAN UNIONIVE GAINED IN THE U.S. ACROSS THE COUNTRY BEGAN IMPLEMENTING REFORMS THAT KUSHED POLICING POLICIES THAT WERE BLAME FOR INJUSTICES IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.

IS THE NEW MAINSTREAM ACCURATE?

ARE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS HAVING THE EFFECTS PROMISED?

IN HIS BOOK, RAFAEL MANGUAL ANSWERS NO.

HE JOINS US NOW.

RAFAEL, WELCOME BACK TO THE PROGRAM.

ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US.

>> THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME BACK.

IT'S A PLEASURE.

>> I SHOULD ADD THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY THE AUTHOR OF THIS NEW EYE-OPENING BOOK, YOU'RE ALSO A SENIOR FELLOW AND HEAD OF RESEARCH FOR POLICING AND PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, AND IN THAT CAPACITY YOU HAVE BEEN ON OUR SHOW MANY TIMES.

WELL, ANY WAY, I HAVE MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY QUESTIONS AS I KNOW I HAVE TIME FOR, SO LET'S GET RIGHT TO IT.

THE CRIMINAL INJUSTICES THAT YOU RIGHT ABOUT IN YOUR BOOK IS NOT THE CRIMINAL INJUSTICE REFORMER HAVE BEEN FIGHTING AGAINST THE LAST FEW YEARS.

IN FACT IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF.

THAT I WONDER IF YOU WOULD GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY CRIMINAL INJUSTICE.

>> I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TALK ABOUT WHY I WROTE THE BOOK.

I WROTE IT LARGELY AS A RESPONSE TO JUST THE SENSE OF FRUSTRATION THAT HAD BEEN GROWING WITHIN ME FOR YEARS OF READING STORY AFTER STORY AFTER STORY OF SOME HEINOUS CRIME BY SOMEBODY WHO WAS OUT ON PAROLE DESPITE MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS WHAT I FELT WAS THERE WASN'T A DEEP APPRECIATION FOR RISKS BEING BORN BY THE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES INTO WHICH THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE GOING TO BE RELEASED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE WEREN'T INCAPACITATING PEOPLE WHO HAD COMMUNICATING THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS CONSISTENTLY OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF PLAYING BY SOCIETY'S RULES.

WHEN SOMEONE LOSES THEIR LIFE, THAT IS A REALLY, REALLY BIG COST ON SOCIETY.

AND I WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THAT.

AND TO MY MIND, THE ONLY INJUSTICES THAT ARE PRODUCED BY OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DON'T TAKE THE FORM OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS OR UNLAWFUL USES OF FORCE, BUT ALSO THE SYSTEM FAILING TO DO ITS CORE JOB TO KEEP US ALL SAFE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT DECIDES THAT IT'S NOT GOING THE HOLD SOMEBODY ACCOUNTABLE FOR A CRIME THEY COMMITTED.

>> BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF YOUR BOOK, AS I SAY IN THE INTRODUCTION, YOU USE YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN PART TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT MAKES A CASE?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, JUST GROWING UP IN BROOKLYN IN THE 1980s AND '90s, HAVING FAMILY THAT GREW UP AND LIVE STILL IN RELATIVELY DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOODS -- MY WIFE IS FROM THE WEST SIDE OF CHICAGO -- I HAVE I THINK A SINCERE AND PERSONAL APPRECIATION FOR WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE TO LIVE AND SPEND TIME IN A HIGH CRIME NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE WAY THAT YOUR DAY-TO-DAY LIFE CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR OWN SAFETY FOR GRANTED.

AND I ALSO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF MOVING FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, IN THE MID 1990s TO A SAFE SUBURB IN LONG ISLAND WHERE FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY BECAME A CONCERN THAT JUST MOVED 10 OR 20 SLOT DOWN THE LIST OF THINGS WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT ON A DAILY BASIS.

I DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MY NEW BIKE GETTING STOLEN, DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING BEAT UP ON MY WAY TO THE STORE.

IT WAS A RADICAL CHANGE AND ONE I GREW TO APPRECIATE OVER THE YEARS.

AT THE SAME TOKEN I'VE SPENT TIME IN LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF CRIME, AND I'VE UNFORTUNATELY COME TO SEE WHAT THAT IS ACTUALLY LIKE, AND IN A VERY PERSONAL WAY.

I TELL A STORY IN MY BOOSK MY WIFE AND I BEING CAUGHT IN A SHOOTOUT OF THE WEST SIDE OF CHICAGO, WHICH WAS INCREDIBLY SCARY AND HAPPENED FAST.

JUST BY VIRTUE OF SPENDING A SMALL SLICE OF OUR TIME IN WHAT IS A DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WERE MADE TO WITNESS A SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME, WHICH I THINK CONTEXTUALIZES WHAT LIFE MIGHT BE LIKE FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY.

>> IN YOUR BOOK YOU EXPLORE ISSUES REGARDING INCARCERATION.

IF, AS YOU ARGUE IN THE BOOK AND IN INTERVIEWS THAT AYE SEEN YOU, THAT THE NARRATIVE WHICH DESCRIBES THE UNITED STATES AS MASS INCARCERATION STATE IS MISTAKEN, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE MASSIVE CONTRADICTION OR THE MASSIVE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PEOPLE INCARCERATED IN THIS COUNTRY AND THOSE INCARCERATED IN JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY?

YOU CITE IN YOUR BOOK THE OFTEN QUOTED FACT THAT WHILE WE HAVE 5% OF THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD, WE HAVE 25% OF THE PRISONERS.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

>> SO, THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS THAT I THINK PROVIDES A MUCH-NEEDED CONTRAST FOR STATISTICS LIKE THAT.

THE FIRST OF THOSE CONT CONTEXTUALIZING POINTS IS WE HAVE A LOT MORE SERIOUS CRIME, CRIME OF THE SORT THAT WOULD RESULT IN LENGTHY PRISON TERMS, WHETHER YOU COMMITTED THEM HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANYWHERE IN THE EU.

WE HAVE LOTS OF GUN CRIME, FOR EXAMPLE, LOTS OF SHOOTINGS, LOTS OF HOMICIDES.

AND IN THE BOOK I DO A COMPARISON OF LOOKING AT A HANDFUL OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN JUST FOUR AMERICAN CITY, ST. LOUIS, DETROIT, CHICAGO, AND BALTIMORE.

AND WITH JUST 0.3% OF THE POPULATION OF ENGLAND, WALES AND GERMANY, THOSE CITIES SAW -- WHICH I THINK GIVES YOU SE OWN OF WHAT THE REALITY IS, WHICH IS WE HAVE A LOT MORE POCKETS OF CONCENTRATED VIOLENT CRIME.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT WE'RE MORE PUNITIVE, WE JUST HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM.

WHICH IS SOMETHING I THINK CRITICS RECOGNIZE IN OTHER DEBATES, THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE, HERER OUR LAX GUN CONTROL POLICIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MUCH LARGEE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM WE HAVE COMPARED TO OTHER EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES.

WELL, THAT DIFFERENCE IN GUN CRIME ALSO HELPS EXPLAIN OUR DIFFERENCE IN INCARCERATION, AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED.

THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE A LOT MORE RESOURCES TO BRING TO BEAR WITHIN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPARATUS THAN A LOT OF OTHER COUNTRIES DO.

WHICH MEANS WE'RE ABLE TO AFFORD MORE POLICE, DIVERT INVESTIGATIONS THAT RESULT IN INCARCERATIONS THAT I THINK A LOT OF COUNTRIES WISH THEY COULD HAVE.

>> BUT GOING BACK TO THE FIRST ARGUMENT, THAT WE HAVE MORE CRIME, BUT MAYBE IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE GUNS.

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HAVE MUCH LESS CRIME BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- THEY'RE LESS INEQUITABLE THEN THAT COUNTRY.

THAT THEIR WELFARE PROVIDES A BASIC STANDARD OF LIVING EVEN FOR THOSE WITH THE LEAST RESOURCES TO NOT PUSH THEM TO THE CRIMINAL WORLD, TO NOT STEAL.

HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

>> THE LARGE AWE ASSUMPTION IN THAT ARGUMENT IS SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS ARE -- AND I JUST DON'T SEE THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT.

I REVIEW A LOT OF THAT EVIDENCE IN MY BOOK.

I'LL GIVE YOU EXAMPLES.

IN NEW YORK CITY WE WENT FROM 2962 MURDERS IN 199 TO -- IN 2017.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE POVERTY RATE IN THE YEARS BEFORE THOSE POINTS IN TIME, YOU'LL SEE THE POVERTY RATE IN 199 WAS REAL SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN IT WAS IN 2016, THE YEAR BEFORE WE HIT OUR VALLEY, SO POVERTY REMAINS UNTOUCHED, IN FACT MOVES SLIGHTLY IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND YET WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE A MASSIVE IMPACT ON ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME CATEGORIES WE HAVE.

WE SEE MEASURE OF INEQUALITY GROW MASSIVELY OVER THE COURSE OF THE 1980s AND '90s AND EARLY AUGHTS AND YET CRIME CONTINUED TO MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, THAT IS TO SAY IT WAS A DOWNWARD TREND.

THERE IS SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN POVERTY INDICATORS AND LOWER LEVEL PROPERTY CRIMES.

YOU'RE MUCH LIKE MORE LIKELY TO STEAL IF YOU'RE POOR.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VIOLENCE, DRIVE BY SHOOTING, HOMICIDES, AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS WITH OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS, GUN POSSESSION.

THOSE CRIMES ARE NOT REALLY TIED TO POVERTY IN IMPORTANT WAYS.

EMPLOYMENT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

DURING THE GREAT RECESSION, THE NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOUBLED BUT THE HOMICIDE RATE DECLINED BY ABOUT 15%.

WE DIDN'T SEE CRIME SPIKE DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, IN FACT WORK SAW IT SPIKE DURING THE 1920s, ONE OF THE PERIODS OF ECONOMIC PROSPERITY THAT'S BEEN UNMATCHED SINCE.

ONCE WE GET AWAY FROM, I THINK, THE MISTAKEN AND MISGUIDED BELIEF THAT VIOLENT CRIME IS LARGELY A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL SPENDING AND THE WELFARE STATE I THINK WE CAN MAKE THE PROGRESS WE ONCE MADE BEFORE, WHICH BY THE WAY, DID NOT REQUIRE US TO SOLVE ONE OF SOCIETY'S MOST INTRACTABLE PROBLEMS.

>> A KEY ASPECT OF THE INCARCERATION NARRATIVE IS OUR DRUGS ARE FILLED THE NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS AND PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.

FOR THEIR SAKE, THE BETTER OPTIONS OF COURSE ARE TREATMENT OR MENTAL HEALTH CARE RATHER THAN INCARCERATION, NOT ONLY FOR THEIR SAKE, BUT THE LONG-TERM SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME ON THIS SHOW MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, AND CHRIS CHRISTIE HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS GOVERNOR OF NEW M NEW JERSEY, I THINK, WAS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT I THINK AT A MANHATTAN INSTITUTE EVENT WAS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN THAT STAKE.

WHAT'S.

>> AS TO THE DRUG CRIME ISSUE IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT INCARCERATION IS DRIVEN BY DRUG ENFORCEMENT.

ABOUT 14% OF ALL STATE PRISONERS, WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 9 OUT OF 10 PRISONERS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE THERE PRIMARILY FOR A DRUG OFFENSE.

I SAY PRIMARILY BECAUSE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT WORD.

OUR INCARCERATION DATA CAPTURED THE CRIME OF WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED FOR WHICH YOU STAND TO SPEND THE MOST TIME IN PRISON.

IF YOU'RE ARRESTED IF A FIREARM AND COCAINE, IF THE TOP LINE SENTENCE FOR THE COCAINE POSSESSION IS GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THE GUN POSSESSION, YOU WILL BE LISTED PRIMARILY AS A DRUG OFFENDER RATHER THAN AS A GUN OFFENDER.

SO THERE'S SOME AGREE TO WHICH WE HAVE TO TAKE THOSE DATA WITH A GRAIN OF SALT, BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTATE THE LEVEL OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ENGAGED IN.

WE ALSO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT CHARGES ARE RESULT OF A PLEA BARGAIN BUT ALSO HAVE TO COUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF VIOLENT CRIMINAL HISTORY IN THOSE WHO FIND THEMSELVES INCARCERATED, EVEN FOR DRUG OFFENSES.

WE SEE THIS IN THE RECIDIVISM DATA.

PEOPLE INCARCERATED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WILL BE GO ON TO BE REARRESTED FOR A NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSE AND MORE THAN A THIRD FOR A VIOLENT ARREST.

>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT, THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE PRISON ARE IN EFFECT A GRADUATE SCHOOL FOR CRIME, AND PEOPLE ORIGINALLY COME IN FOR LESSER CRIMES AND BECOME EXPERTS IN HARDER CRIMES?

>> YEAH, SO THIS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT INCARCERATION IS CRIMEN GENERALIC ON NET.

SUCH THAT THE IMPACT OF THE INCARCERATION ON A CRIMINAL'S BEHAVIOR POST RELEASE WILL ERASE WHATEVER PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFITS ARE WITH TAKING THEM OFF THE STREET.

THAT IS TRUE FOR A SMALL SLICE OF PEOPLE WHO GET TREATED TO INCARCERATION.

THIS IS AN ARGUMENT I ADDRESS IN DETAIL IN THE BOOK, BUT BASICALLY IT STEMS FROM A GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH THAT SEEKS TO TEST THE TREATMENT OF INCARCERATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL.

THE RAY THAT RESEARCH IS DONE IS YOU HAVE TO FIND A POPULATION FOR WHOM THE DECISION TO INCARCERATE IS RANDOM, BUT THAT DECISION IS NEVER RANDOM, SO HOW DO WE STUDY THIS AS RESEARCHERS?

YOU FIND A POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED ON THE MARGIN OF INCARCERATION.

THESE ARE PEOPLE ENGAGE IN THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT ISN'T SO SERIOUS THAT'S A GUARANTEE THEY'LL BE INCARCERATED BUT ISN'T SO MINOR IT'S A GUARANTEE THEY'LL BE DIVERTED.

AND SO THE DECISION TO INCARCERATE IS GOING TO BE ON THE LENIENCY OF SEVERITY OF THE JUDGE THEY DRAW, WHICH IS RANDOM.

.

YOU EXCLUDE THOSE IN THE MIDDLE.

ONLY LOOK AT CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGES WHO ARE SEVERE OR LENIENT AND COMPARE OUTCOMES.

WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DRAW SEVERE JUDGES AND GET ENCARS RATED DO RECIDIVATE AT SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER RATES THAN THOSE WHO DRAW LENIENT JUDGES.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT IS BEING GRAFTED ON TO A. TOLATION OF OFFENDERS THAT IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSON THAT'S ON THE MARGINS OF INCARCERATION.

THE TYPICAL PRISONER, TYPICAL JAIL INMATE POSES A MUCH HIGHER RISK.

FOR MENTAL HEALTH, I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERT THROUGH GREATER MENTAL HEALTH TRAEMT.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT SYSTEM OF COMPELLED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT HAS BEEN ERODED AND PRISONS HAVE BEEN THE FALLBACK, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR SOCIETY.

>> OKAY, REALLY QUICKLY, WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF INCARCERATION ON THE CHILDREN OF THE INCARCERATED?

SINCE OVERWHELMINGLY MOST OF THOSE INCARCERATED ARE MEN, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A LOT OF FATHERLESS HOMES, THE VERY THING CONSERVATIVES ARGUE IS THE REASON FOR FAMILY DYSFUNCTION AND FOR CRIME.

SO, IF THAT'S THE CASE, IS INCARCERATION FOR MANY, THOSE WHO ARE BEHIND BARS, NOT JUST INHUMANE, BUT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE?

>> THIS IS AN ARGUMENT I HEAR A LOT IN ORDER TO -- HYPOCRITICAL ON THIS ISSUE.

THE PROBLEM IS IT LIES IN -- THERE'S NO BASIS FOR DATA, WHICH IS THE MEN WHO ARE GETTING INCARCERATED WOULD OTHERWISE BE RELIABLE FOR FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUPREME COURT IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN HOMES AND COMMUNITIES.

THE DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT WILLIAM A KNOW THAT TWO PARENTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE GENERALLY SPEAKING BUT THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING IS AN IMPORTANT EQUALLY COMMUNICATION, BECAUSE IN FACT THE ABSENCE OF ONE PRO SOCIAL PARENT DOES INCLUDE BAD OUTCOMES BUT THE PRESENCE OF ONE ANTI-SOCIAL PARENT PRODUCES WORST OUTCOMES FOR KIDS.

THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS THE PERSON WHO'S LIKELY TO FIND THEMSELVES BEHIND BARS MORE LIKELY TO FALL INTO THE ANTI-SOCIAL CAMP OR PRO SOCIAL CAMP?

WE HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE ON THIS.

ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE I'LL GIVE YOU HERE IS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER HAS A RATE -- IN INCARCERATED SETTINGS IT'S AROUND 40% TO 50%, WHICH GIVES US A MUCH LARGER NUMBER.

GIVES US AN IDEA OF WHAT THESE PARENTS WOULD EXPERIENCE IF THEY WERE IN THE HOME.

>> LET'S MOVE ON.

SINCE THE BAIL REFORM LAWS ELIMINATING CASH BAIL FOR A LONG LIST OF CRIMES WAS PASSED IN ALBANY IN 2019, MUCH OF THE DEBATE ABOUT INCARCERATION FOCUSED ON PRETRIAL DETENTION.

THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT AGAINST CASH BAIL IS IT CRIMINALIZES POVERTY SINCE YOU GET OUT IF YOU CAN PAY YOUR WAY OUT, AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU STAY IN.

THE OTHER ARGUMENT IS IT'S AN INFECTIVE WAY OF KEEPING THE DANGEROUS PEOPLE OFF THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A ONE-ON-ONE.

YOU AGREE BUT YOU'RE STILL A PROPONENT OF THE BAIL REFORM BILLS.

THE US WHY?

>> I'M SENSITIVE TO THE NATURE OF THAT CRITIQUE.

I THINK RELANS ON CASH BAIL, ON MONETARY CONDITIONS PRODUCES INEFFICIENCIES.

BUT WE SHOULD DO IS REORIENT THE CONVERSATION AROUND RISK.

RISK REMAINS OFF THE TABLE AS A CONSIDERATION FOR JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN MAKING PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISION, AND THAITS A WRONGHEADED WAY TO DO THIS.

WE CAN'T JUST APPROACH THIS PROBLEM BY THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER BY MAKING PRETRIAL LESS LIKELY CRASS THE BOARD, BECAUSE THERE ARE PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFIT WES ENJOY AS A RESULT OF THE INCAPACITATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS PRETRIAL.

WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHO THEY ARE AND REMAND THEM.

THE NEW YORK SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW THAT AT ALL, AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER SYSTEMS THAT DO ALLOW THAT IS AN UNWILLINGNESS ON THE PART OF SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVE PROSECUTORS AND PROGRESSIVE JUDGES TO ACTUALLY PULL THOSE LEVERS.

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS GOING TO PROVE TO BE A REAL CHALLENGE IS THAT EVEN IN A JURISDICTION WITH A WELL CONSTRUCTED BAIL REFORM, THOSE REFORMS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS HUMAN SAFETY AS THE HUMANS THAT ARE IMPLEMENTING THEM.

SO WHAT I HOPE PEOPLE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS BOOK IS THERE ARE USEFUL WAYS TO BE BETTER AND MORE OBJECTIVE WHEN TRYING TO ASSESS RISK SO WE CAN BETTER PROTECT THE COMMUNITY WHILE ALSO BEING MORE PRECISE IN WHO GETS SUBJECTED TO THE HARSH REALITIES OF INCARCERATION.

>> I HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS ON INCARCERATION, BUT TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

LET ME TURN TO POLICING.

AS YOU SAID AND AS YOU WRITE IN THE BOOK, THE WIDESPREAD PERCEPTION IS POLICE VIOLENCE IS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, BUT AWE LIKELY OUTCOME OF A POLICE INVESTIGATION OR ENFORCEMENT INTERACTION, PARTICULARLY WITH THE INTERACTIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE OF COLOR.

BUT YOU SAY THAT DATA SHOWS THAT THAT PERCEPTION IS WRONG.

WHAT IS THE DATA?

WHAT IS THE REALITY?

>> SO, THE REALITY IS THAT POLICE USE FORCE IN EXCEEDINGLY RARE CASES.

PEOPLE HAVE IT IN THEIR HEAD THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLICE OFFICERS WILL FIRE THEIR WEAPONS OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR CAREER.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

YOU'RE TALK ABOUT MAYBE 25% OF OFFICERS WILL DISCHARGE THEIR FIREARMS OVER, SAY, 25 YEARS.

BUT EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT INTERACTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, USE OF FORCE IS VERY, VERY RARE.

IF WE JUST TAKE POLICE SHOOTINGS, IN THE BOOK I DO AN ANALYSIS WHERE I CALCULATE THAT POLICE FIRED THEIR WEAPON A LITTLE OVER 3,000 INCIDENCES IN 2018.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.

IT'S MORE THAN A FEW A DAY.

BUT WHEN YOU CONTEXTUALIZE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT POLICE MADE 10,300,000 ARRESTS THAT YEAR, NOW YOU'RE TALK ABOUT POLICE FIRING THEIR WEAPONS IN 0.03% OF ALL ARRESTS.

NONDEADLY WE SEE IT'S A RARE PHENOMENON.

THERE WAS ONE STUDY THAT LOOKED AT THREE MIDSIZED POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THREE STATES AND LOOKED AT A MILLION CALL FOR SERVICE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

THOSE CALL FOR SERVICE RESULT IN THE 114,000 CRIMINAL ARRESTS.

POLICE USED FORCE IN -- AND 98% OF THE CASES IN WHICH THEY DID USE FORCE THERE WAS NO TO MILD INJURY TO THE SUBJECT.

THAT ENTIRE DATA SET THERE WAS ONE FATAL POLICE SHOOTING.

WHEN I TELL PEOPLE THIS, I THINK THEY GET SURPRISE.

BECAUSE IN THEIR MINDS, POLICE OFFICERS ARE KILLING, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND, 10,000, 15,000 UNARMED PEOPLE A YEAR, AND THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

NOW ON THE RACIAL DISPARITY POINT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN -- WE DO FIND THERE ARE RACIAL DISPARITIES IN LOW A LEVEL POLICES OF FORCE, IN POLICE PUTTING THEIR HANDS ON SUSPECTS -- CUFFING THEM DURING INVESTIGATE STOPS.

WHEN COMES TO USES OF FORCE THAT HAVE GENERATED THE PREVENTS WE'VE SEEN, WE DON'T SEE THAT, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> IF THAT'S THE CASE AND IT'S ALSO THE CASES AWE MAKE THE ARGUMENT THROUGHOUT THE BOOK THAT THE ENDING OF THE PROACTIVE POLICING THAT LOWERED THE CRIME RATE SO MUCH OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS WAS MOST FELT BY THE POOREST COMMUNITIES OF COLLAR, BECAUSE THE REDUCTION IN CRIME MEANT A MUCH SAFER LIFE FOR THEM, IF THOSE TWO THINGS ARE TRUE, WHY AREN'T THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN THESE -- THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OUT ON THE STREETS CLAMBERING FOR A RETURN OF THESE PROACTIVE POLICING TACTICS?

IN FACT, AS YOU YOURSELF CITE, THERE ARE SOME POLLS THAT SAY TWICE AS MANY AFRICAN AMERICANS THINK THAT THEIR LOVED ONES ARE MUCH MORE IN DANGER OF BEING KILLED BY A POLICEMAN OR THAN CONFRONTING GENERAL VIOLENCE.

THEY DON'T THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

>> I THINK THE MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS THE MASSIVE FAILURE ON THE PART OF OUR LEGACY MEDIA INSTITUTIONS TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND TO PERPETUATE THE FALSE NARRATIVE THAT THE REALITY OF POLICING IN THE UNITED STATES IS IT IS VIOLENT AND RACIALLY OPPRESSIVE IN TERM OF OUTCOMES.

I DO THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE BLAMED FOR BELIEVING WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD SO MANY TIMES BY SOURCES THEY TRUST.

BUT OF COURSE I THINK THE DATA SAY THOSE NOTIONS ARE WRONG.

BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE REMAINS A LOT OF SUPPORT WITHIN LOW INCOME BLACK COMMUNITIES FOR POLICING.

RIGHT, GALLUP LAST YEAR POLLED THE BLACK COMMUNITY ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANTED TO SEE EQUAL OR GREATER AMOUNTS OF POLICING.

81% OF BLACK AMERICANS TOLD GALLUP THEY WANTED TO SEE AS MUCH IF NOT MORE THAN THEY WERE CURRENTLY GETTING.

HERE IN NEW YORK CITY, MAYOR ERIC ADAMS RAN HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN ON AN ANTI-CRIME PLATFORM AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY CAME OUT OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS CANDIDACY.

YOU MAKE AN IMPORTANT POINT.

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS AN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS WITH THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS -- AND THERE ARE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES DO BEAR THE BRUNT OF THOSE COSTS.

THEY ALSO ENJOY THE MAJORITY OF THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROGRAMS.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT WE LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEGEND.

WHEN DO YOU THAT I THINK IT BALANCES OUT IN AN IMPORTANT WAY.

THE STATISTIC I KIND OF LEAN INTO IN THE BOOK THAT I THINK MAKES THIS POINT AND DRIVES IT HOME IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOMICIDE DECLINE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2019 FOR WHICH LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS WERE FULLY RESPONSIBLE, IT ADDED A FULL YEAR OF LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR THE AVERAGE BLACK MAN WHILE ATTING 0.1 YEARS FOR THE -- >> RAFAEL, EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVE THE DATA DEMONSTRATES CLEARLY THE USE OF FORCE BY POLICE IS EXAGGERATED, THERE IS STILL USE AND ABUSE OF FORCE BY POLICE.

IS THERE ANY POLICY THAT YOU WOULD SEE AS SOMETHING THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING THAT ABUSE OF FORCE THAT DOES EXIST?

>> YEAH, I THINK ABSOLUTELY BETTER TRAINING, HIGHER QUALITY RECRUITS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT OFTEN GOES UNDERSTATED.

THERE'S A LOT OF DATA IN A GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SHOWS EDUCATIONAL A TANMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER LEVELS OF FORCE BEING USED, EVEN WHEN YOU CONTROL FOR TYPES OF SITUATIONS.

OFFICERS WITH COLLEGE DEGREES WERE LESS LIKELY TO USE FORCE THAN OFFICERS WITH DIPLOMAS.

IT'S NOT TO SAY THESE JOBS SHOULD BE OFFLIMITS TO THOSE WITHOUT A COLLEGE DEGREE, BUT WE COULD DO MORE TO BRING THEM INTO THE INSTITUTIONS OF POLICING.

THAT WOULD HELP.

ON THE TRAINING FRONT, THERE ARE A LOT OF GAINS TO BE MADE, AND THAT'S LARGELY A FUNCTION OF RESOURCES.

WE HAVE 18,000 POLICE AGENCIES AROUND ABOUT IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THEY'RE NOT ALL THE NYPD OR CHICAGO PD WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THE THEIR DISPOSAL.

THEY'RE OFTEN VERY SMALL DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE KIND OF LIVING BUDGET TO BUDGET AND TRYING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

SO, THE MORE WE INVEST IN POLICING THE BETTER THE OUTCOMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.

IT'S A GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR TYPE OF SITUATION.

WHAT I SAY IN THE BOOK, THOUGH, IS A LOT OF THE POPULAR REFORM PROPOSALS, DE-ESCALATION, GETTING RID OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THOSE DO NOT SEEM LIKELY TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DECLINES IN POLICE USE OF FORCE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> WE ONLY HAVE 25 SECONDS, SO LET ME TAKE IT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR BOOK AGAIN.

"CRIMINAL INJUSTICE" WHAT THE PUSH FOR DEPOLICING GETS WROK AND WHO IT HURTS THE MOST.

IT'S FULL OF DATA.

WHEREVER YOU STAND, IT'S A GOOD BOOK TO READ TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THIS IMPORTANT DEBATE WE'RE HAVING.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO TALK TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

AND BY --