The question that truly matters

The real question is, Who is thinking about this in new ways? Who is trying new approaches? Who is not being bound by limitations about what is possible?

CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS/FILE
A NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER STANDS GUARD IN TIMES SQUARE.

At the heart ofHenry Gass’s cover story this week is a lingering question: Is Mark Gonzalez right or wrong?

There is no question he makes for a fascinating leading man – a tattooed, Harley-riding Texas prosecutor who seems more likely to appear on an FX network drama than in the courthouses of Nueces County. But there he is, letting minor marijuana offenders get off with a fine and completion of a drug class, letting first-time domestic abusers avoid jail if they take classes on family violence for half a year, letting criminals trade punishment for a vocational degree. 

Is he a reformer trying to wean a justice system addicted to prison? Or is he an example of history repeating itself – undoing the get-tough-on-crime work of the 1980s, enabling a new crime wave?

The question of which is the correct approach has exposed a generational divide among prosecutors, Henry says. But in many ways, it’s the wrong question. 

The real question, Henry suggests, is not in deciding between “hard” and “soft” approaches to crime. “ ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches are constantly colliding and moving through the nation’s courtrooms in cycles,” he writes. 

The real question is, Who is thinking about this in new ways? Who is trying new approaches? Who is not being bound by limitations about what is possible? 

Two decades ago, the tough-on-crime “broken windows” theory of policing was a revelation for New York City. It held that no crime was too small – that the pathway to less violent crime was to refuse to accept crime at any level. It transformed New York. But it also filled prisons with a lost generation.

Now prosecutors like Mr. Gonzalez are in essence asking, “Can I do what New York did without throwing away the key for a generation of inmates? Can we make ourselves safer and improve the lives of those caught in a spiral of crime?”

It is easy to dismiss the efforts as naive. And indeed, maybe they won’t work. But embedded in Gonzalez’s efforts is a protest against the idea that this is as good as it gets – that further progress on the issue is just a pipe dream. 

New York faced that same skepticism two decades ago. Times Square was not much better than a red-light district. Crime was rampant. Organized crime operated with impunity. 

That was not as good as New York could be. Not by a long shot. 

In his cover story, Henry writes that “there is no cookie-cutter approach to fighting crime.” Models can provide lessons and can promote progress, as “broken windows” did. But the permanent solution to crime is not in sight. “Hard” approaches to crime are not the answer. Neither are “soft” ones. The full range of human ingenuity applied with lather, rinse, repeat frequency is the answer. 

In that way, the debate about crime in Texas’ Nueces County is emblematic of the broader American conversation on just about everything else. Are we expecting one side to have all the right answers? Or are we eager for innovative thinking that aspires to knock down old barriers?

That reframes the questions that really matter. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.