Gary Johnson on Crime Libertarian presidential nominee; former Republican NM Governor

Stop & frisk isn't constitutional

Gary Johnson: Americans believe in the Constitution and the protections it's supposed to provide. Mr. Trump appears willing to 'frisk' those protections away if they get in the way of his version of fixing things.

What are some local police doing that others aren't?

JOHNSON: Absolutely, and the role of government would be at the local level. And from a national standpoint: What's working? What's not working? What big communities in this country have the best incidence of police- the least incidence of police brutality, shooting, and what are they doing that others aren't? What's the consistency or what are the common threads in areas with the most shootings? And I am also coming from New Mexico, where Albuquerque has just had unbelievable incidents. They might be at the top of the list when it comes to shooting and size of community.

Q: And how about the role for the Justice Department civil rights division?

JOHNSON: Yeah!

Men of color four times as likely to end up behind bars

JOHNSON: Yes. Well, I do. And I'll come back to the drug war. If you're of color, there's a four times more likelihood that you'll end up behind bars than if you're not of color. And I think so much of "shoot first" has its roots in the drug war. Knock the door down and shoot. We'd like to bring an end to the drug war, and by that treat the issue as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue.

Too many unnecessary laws leads to too many in prison

The failed War on Drugs is, of course, the greatest example. More generally, mandatory minimum sentences for a wide range of offenses and other efforts by politicians to be "tough" have removed far too much common-sense discretion from judges and prosecutors.

These factors, combined with the simple fact that we have too many unnecessary laws, have produced a society with too many people in our prisons and jails, too many undeserving individuals saddled with criminal records, and a seriously frayed relationship between law enforcement and those they serve.

Fortunately, a growing number of state governments are taking steps toward meaningful criminal justice reform. The federal government must do the same, and Johnson is committed to bringing real leadership to this long-overdue effort.

Vetoed early release of prisoners due to overcrowding

Some representatives (including a few who were potential allies for me) were outraged because it made them look soft on criminals.

Vetoed hate crime legislation as thought-crime

Built private prisons to replace out-of-state prisoners

• We have reduced taxes by $123 million annually.
• We reformed Medicaid and got Medicaid costs under control.
• We built a couple of new, private prisons in NM. We had prisoners housed out of state, and the federal court system had been running prisons in NM under a consent decree since 1980. We are now out from under that consent decree.

Private prisons cost $20 less/day than public control

Approximately 700 prisoners from NM were being housed out of state due to prison wing closures resulting from federal oversight. This put prisons at the forefront of my agenda. The NM legislature did not want to address the prison issue. It had become an enormously expensive and embarrassing situation.

I figured that if we went to a privatized system, we wouldn't have to come up with the funds and it would cost only 2/3 of what it was costing the state.

Public control of the prisons cost about $76/prisoner/day, and private control cost about $56/prisoner/day. We were able to provide the same services and still run the prisons with those significant savings. The system is still running that way today.

DNA evidence shows many people are mistakenly convicted

I understand the eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth mentality but, realistically public policy should have room for mistakes. Killing one innocent person who was wrongly accused is not worth executing 99 guilty people. DNA evidence and judicial appeals have shown many people are mistakenly convicted.

The death penalty is flawed public policy and its consequences are irreversible. Plus, the financial cost of capital punishment (mostly legal fees) is several times greater for taxpayers than keeping someone in prison for life.

1994: Proponent of death penalty, but willing to debate it

In 1994 Gary Johnson was elected NM Governor, campaigning as a strong proponent of the death penalty. [Over the years], Johnson has altered his position [but here are his early views]:
• 1996: Johnson said that he would favor the death penalty for children as young as 13 and 14 in some circumstances.
• 1997: The House approves Johnson's bill to expand the death penalty to include child killers and multiple murders, and drive-by killings.
• 1998: Johnson again asks for a two-year cap on death row appeals. He stated that be believed "when you have a certainty of punishment being given, that acts as a deterrent."
• 2000 : Johnson again voices his support for the death penalty saying that "if you have committed murder, I happen to believe that you should pay for that with your own life."
• 2001: A Johnson aid states that the Governor will not impose a moratorium, but may be willing to take part in public debate on the issue of capital punishment stating that "his eyes are open."

Death penalty as a public policy is flawed

Johnson has altered his position on the death penalty--this chronology attempts to understand why Johnson has become less supportive:
• Oct. 2001: Johnson states, "Swift and sure punishment deters crime," Johnson wrote. "Currently, I do not believe that New Mexico's death penalty serves as an effective preventative measure because it is neither swift or sure."
• Oct. 2001: Johnson writes, "Those opposed to the death penalty point out the disparities that exist with regard to individuals receiving the death penalty sentence. They argue persuasively that these disparities are a result of several factors including prosecutorial discretion as well as racial and economic discrimination."
• Dec. 2001: Governor Johnson states that he will place the repeal bill on the agenda if requested to do so. He also said that he was wrong to propose limits on death row appeals.
• Jan. 2002: Johnson states that he has "come to believe that the death penalty as a public policy is flawed."

Don't risk putting innocent to death

A: As governor of New Mexico, I was a bit na‹ve and I did not think the government made mistakes with regard to the death penalty. I came to realize that they do. I don't want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.

Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime

A: Kids who have been surveyed say it's easier to get illegal drugs than beer. The evidence shows that more people won't do drugs if they're legal. Holland, where marijuana is decriminalized and controlled, has 60% of the drug use--both hard drugs and marijuana--the US has. They have a quarter the crime rate, a quarter the homicide rate, a quarter the violent crime rate and a tenth the incarceration rate. It suggests that more people don't do drugs because they're legal. But let's just say that the number of users would go up: I still would say it was worthwhile. Look at the trade-off.

Q: What trade-off?

Half of all crime is drug-related. Half. Half of what we spend--on law enforcement, on the courts, on prisons--is drug-related. If we legalized drugs, we would destroy the environment that allows and even encourages all those crimes.

Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs.

The Issue

The major crime issues for the 107th Congress will be:
• reauthorization of the juvenile justice program, which established a block grant to states for prevention and delinquency intervention programs;
• reauthorization of programs in the 1994 crime bill, including the state criminal alien assistance program (SCAAP), a reimbursement program to state and local governments for housing illegal alien prisoners;
• the state prison grants program, formally known as the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant program, [where states receive funds based on increasing the percentage of prison sentences actually served]; and
• the Byrne block grant program, a flexible block grant that states use for innovative crime and illegal drug fighting programs.

NGA’s Position

• NGA policy calls for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA) and supports the underlying principles of the act. However, NGA wants some flexibility in the core requirements, e.g., allowing some accidental contact between adults and juveniles; expanding the hours before removal from 24 hours to 48 hours; holding certain incorrigible juveniles in detention; and relaxing the disproportionate minority confinement record keeping process. The Governors urge maximum flexibility to implement the spirit and purpose of the act.
• The Governors support authorization of the juvenile accountability incentive block grant (JAIBG) program.
• The Governors also support reauthorization of SCAAP and seek to raise the reimbursement ratio.
• For the Byrne block grant program, NGA seeks to continue the current program with flexibility.
• For the state prison grants program, NGA seeks to abolish all requirements and have more flexibility, with the state designating the offender population to be served.

Zero tolerance for violence against government employees.

BACKGROUND
1. America’s communities, schools and workplaces are the building blocks of our peaceful and productive society.
2. It is the obligation of governments to ensure citizens and visitors in our nation are protected from violence and do not feel threatened by it.
3. Employees of the federal, state and local governments, including public land managers, are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to faithfully discharge the duties of their offices. Government employees are working men and women with families who, as our neighbors, contribute to the communities in which they live.

GOVERNORS’ POLICY STATEMENT
1. Western Governors unequivocally endorse a zero tolerance for violence throughout our society. We support the use of all legal authority to prevent violence.
2. Western Governors unequivocally endorse a zero tolerance for violence directed specifically against government employees. The Western Governors express their appreciation for all of the contributions that government employees have made and continue to make to the states and communities in which they live.