May 27, 2026 • 35 mins
Most debates about crime policy are framed as a choice. You’re either tough on crime or you’re not. You focus on enforcement or prevention. And the answers tend to sound simple.
But once you move from talking about crime to actually trying to reduce it, things get more complicated, requiring nuanced solutions to complex problems.
My guest today is Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and a longtime policy advisor who has worked across multiple administrations, including serving as domestic policy advisor in the Biden White House.
In this episode, we talk about what crime policy looks like from inside that system, what we’ve learned from the last few years, and why approaches focused on accountability and prevention don’t have to be in conflict.
Neera Tanden is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and the CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Before leading American Progress, Tanden was the Domestic Policy Advisor to President Joe Biden and director of the Domestic Policy Council, overseeing some of the administration’s signature achievements, including its efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs and expand health insurance coverage. Previously, she was Senior Advisor and Staff Secretary in the White House.
Tanden helped found American Progress, first working as senior vice president for domestic policy and later as chief operating officer. She ran the organization from 2011 to 2021, adding 10 policy teams and growing the budget by two-thirds. Previously, she has served as senior adviser for health reform at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, policy director for Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign, legislative director in then-Sen. Clinton’s (D-NY) office, and a senior policy adviser to the first lady in President Bill Clinton’s White House. Tanden received her Bachelor of Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her law degree from Yale Law School.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
I'm Jeff Asher, and this is the Jeffalytics Podcast.
Most debates about crime policyare framed as a choice.
You're either tough on crime oryou're not.
You focus on enforcement or youfocus on prevention.
And the answers tend to soundsimple.
But once you move from talkingabout crime to actually trying
to reduce it, things get morecomplicated, requiring nuanced
solutions to complex problems.
(00:22):
My guest today is Nira Tannen,president and CEO of the Center
for American Progress and alongtime policy advisor who has
worked across multipleadministrations, including
serving as domestic policyadvisor in the Biden White
House.
In this episode, we talk aboutwhat crime policy looks like
from inside that system.
What we've learned from the lastfew years, and why approaches
(00:42):
focused on accountability andprevention don't have to be in
conflict.
We also get into the gap betweenwhat's politically compelling
and what's actually effective,and why solving this problem is
harder than the debate makes itsound.
Let's get started.
My guest today is Neer Tandon.
Neera, thank you so much forjoining me.
SPEAKER_01 (00:59):
Great to be with you.
SPEAKER_00 (01:02):
So, first question to every guest
background?
What brought you here today?
And then I'm going to add anaddendum to that that I don't
normally get to ask every guestis what is it like working at
the White House?
So uh I I I'm very curious tohear this answer.
SPEAKER_01 (01:17):
I'll take this in order.
I'm currently the CEO andpresident of the Center for
American Progress, which is amulti-issue think tank in
Washington.
It's uh, you know, we're kind ofon the center left.
And so but our goal is really totry to solve problems, you know,
develop ideas to solve problems.
We have policy teams andnational security, economic
(01:37):
policy, domestic policy, and wehave a crime and criminal
justice team.
And it's that team that reallyhas authored our work on crime.
Um before that, I was domesticpolicy advisor to President
Biden, who's also staffsecretary, um, which before that
role, where which is in chargeof informational flow in the
White House, is a reallyinteresting job.
(01:58):
But the domestic policy counciljob is one in which you are
overseeing domestic policy forthe president of the United
States, and it was a reallyamazing job and a great
privilege.
Before that, I'd worked at CAPuh for about a decade.
I was I was also its CEO andpresident before then.
I helped start CAP way back in2000, and I've served in three
(02:20):
White Houses.
I I served on the DomesticPolicy Council on in the way
back in the Clinton, in thesecond term of the Clinton White
House.
Um was a lot younger then.
Do you want to note that?
Uh, and then I worked onhealthcare reform for President
Obama.
So I have a lot of policyexperience.
(02:42):
And in the late 90s, when Iworked for President Clinton, I
did a lot of work on, I was onthe children and families team
and the domestic policy council,and we did a lot of work on
school violence and collaboratedwith the crime team back then on
kids and access to guns.
I've worked in, as I said, inthe White House, but I've also
(03:03):
worked on a variety ofpresidential campaigns, Hillary
Clinton's presidential campaign,Barack Obama's presidential
campaign.
I've worked on crime issues inall of those areas.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
So I have a very boring CAP story, which is in
2006 when I was in in gradschool at GW, I interned with a
group called the NationalSecurity Networks that like sort
of had one office in CAP.
And so I went to CAP's officefrequently during for a couple
of months back then, and then Igot a job with the intelligence
community and was off.
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
But um yeah, that's pretty cool.
Well, we were we're the samebuilding now.
We have the bottom four floorsinstead of being spread out.
So it's much better.
SPEAKER_00 (03:43):
That's that sounds nice.
So where do you see CAP fittingin on sort of the criminal
justice policy making process?
SPEAKER_01 (03:55):
Um, I you know, I think we're really trying to
offer ideas of how to, you know,improve public safety, lower
crime in the United States.
Um and I think this is a debatethat's become, like many
debates, highly politicized.
And our goal was is to offerkind of evidence-based
(04:16):
solutions.
Crime is an interesting issuebecause even when it comes down,
you know, it's still a badthing.
So you know it's not like, youknow, people, you know, if
you're a victim of crime, evenif it's there's less crime in
the neighborhood, you're still avictim.
So it is, it is something thatyou really want to drive down as
far as you possibly can from apolicy perspective.
(04:37):
So, you know, I think sometimesin some circles, you know, uh
you'll have a lot of discourseof crime is coming down.
Why do we need to do anything?
And I think this is a realmistake.
For those of us who believe in agovernment that works for people
and strong government, we haveto deliver results.
And what's really interesting isthat we I think we've learned a
(04:58):
lot about what works over thelast several years.
We've had real deep declines incrime.
You know, I welcome, you know,your views on why that has
happened.
But we have seen a lot of policyvariation and innovation at the
local level.
Uh, and what we try to do in ourwork is look at what's working
around the country and thencreate a guide, essentially a
(05:21):
policy guide of best practiceswhere, you know, at the national
level, we could drive down crimeeven more if we kind of got out
of our partisan corners andthought about how to actually
solve this problem even betterthan we are right now.
SPEAKER_00 (05:35):
So I I want to dig deeper on that.
You guys have put out a lot ofof reports and things like that.
Is there a without you know thistaking several hours to
summarize all of the reports, isthere a general guidelines,
general thoughts, generaldirection that you see that Cap
sees as far as like howpolicymakers should approach
things in a realistic direction?
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Yeah, I'd say first and foremost, we, and this is
again all based on evidence, youknow, we understand or we
believe that the best way toreduce crime is for people
would-be criminals, to believethat they will be punished if
they commit crime.
And I think this is a reallyimportant issue because in the
(06:18):
90s, and you know, you still seethis in the debates, there's a
lot of discussion about thelength of sentencing.
So if you just expand the lengthof sentencing for crimes, it,
you know, people will arguethey're reducing crime.
But that's not actually what theevidence dictates.
It's the evidence shows that,you know, people don't think
about the future so much.
(06:38):
It's much more about thecertainty of punishment for
lawbreakers.
And so, you know, and and welearned a lot during COVID,
which is that there is someresearch, and I totally I really
would do welcome your views onthis, but there's some research
that indicates that one of thereasons why we had a spike was
because the system of justicekind of slowed down.
It was harder to get courtcases, everything kind of slowed
(07:01):
down, and that impacted people'skind of decision-making about
these things.
So we believe that you shouldensure the system is working to
deliver.
You want to, you know, we have abunch of strategies to lower,
like increase the clearancerate, ensure crimes are actually
punished with strategies thathave worked in place in country
(07:21):
and cities around the country.
We also believe, you know, fromdata that there are prevention
strategies that have beensuccessful.
And then there are particularareas where where, you know, we
have we've seen some surges incrime and you know, that raise
some significant problems thatwe want to address.
But at a very high level, Ithink thematically we believe
(07:44):
it's important to ensure, youknow, swift and certain
punishments to hold lawbreakersaccountable and also invest in
strategies, policing strategies,and prevention strategies that
work.
And, you know, what'sinteresting about this to me is
that you have progressive mayorsin places like Baltimore that
have increased detectives andincreased police officers, and
(08:08):
also worked on, you know, kindof innovative crime fighting
slash prevention strategies likefocused deterrence and have seen
great results.
And I think that's what you knowwe're focused on.
What would actually work toreduce crime?
What are the strategies that areworking?
And we don't have to relive thekind of bad policy decisions of
(08:28):
the 90s or things that hadreally negative effects, like
just expanding sentences foreverybody and not giving them a
second chance.
We strongly believe in secondchances, but we also know we
should, we should build on whatwe know it works.
SPEAKER_00 (08:44):
Is there a sort of bipartisan path for achieving
this, especially sort offocusing on the swiftness and
the certainty and improvingclearance rates?
It's it feels like that'ssomething that I know Utah just
passed a law and signed a lawthat says that um that was can
provide grants to agencies toimprove their violent crime
clearance rates.
(09:05):
Is this something, and have youguys done any work on sort of a
taking that as the bipartisan,okay, this is something that
across the political spectrum wecan all agree on is a thing to
do?
SPEAKER_01 (09:15):
Yeah, so I think this is what's really
interesting, because at thelocal level, this is very
bipartisan.
You have moderate mayors,progressive mayors, I mean, not
every progressive mayor, but alot of progressive mayors taking
on strategies that do work.
I just mentioned Baltimore.
And, you know, it's interesting,Mayor Mamdani hasn't really
(09:37):
repealed any of the strategies,or like at a high level, has not
really repealed the strategiesthat he that were, you know,
having a good impact on loweringcrime rates.
And so I hope at the nationallevel we could actually have
bipartisan efforts.
I worry that, you know, crimehas been basically used a
little, you know, and I argue,you know, I don't mean to be
(10:00):
partisan here, but Republicanshave kind of often used crime as
a wedge to attack Democrats.
And, you know, there's been somereporting that the president of
the White House planned to usecrime again in the fall
elections.
And so, you know, I hope we canget out of this kind of
hyperpolarization we're in.
But I think as you mentioned,Utah, you know, I mean, places
(10:23):
like Illinois have focused onactually trying to address their
clearance rate problems.
And uh I think they are, youknow, they have to live with the
consequences of crime.
So I think they have a lot ofmore s a lot more skin in the
game in a way.
And so we see a lot ofbipartisanship there.
And I hope that that carries onuh at the national level.
SPEAKER_00 (10:44):
You uh you talked about sort of the Republican
approach to to crime and thiskind of instinctual, I guess,
you know, we have to be tough oncrime, we have to increase
sentences, which it felt likefor about a decade was going
away and is kind of making itsway back into the national
discourse.
Taking on the other side ofthat, is there a way for
(11:05):
Democrats to uh we saw this alot in 2020, and then in the
reaction of the last few years,it felt like, and maybe I'm
wrong and you feel differently,but it felt like the responses
were either ignoring when thingswere getting worse, which they
were in the sort of that 2020 to2022 period, or when it the the
(11:27):
only response was, well, wegotta get tough on crime.
Is there a way for Democrats tosort of ignore that false
dichotomy of either it has to begoing down or we our response
has to be we have to be tough oncrime?
I'm sorry, that's a littlecounseling.
SPEAKER_01 (11:41):
That's a great question.
And I think we are trying tooffer ideas right in that space.
Okay.
So if someone is punished, youknow, for shooting someone and
not killing them, you know, weknow from the data that people
who get away with certaincrimes, you know, could tend to
(12:03):
commit more crimes.
So, you know, my view of this isI think like people are kind of
in the middle on this topic.
You know, the vast majority ofthe public is kind of you know
in the middle.
They think we should invest inprevention, they think it's
better to prevent crime.
So it's not just soft to preventcrime, it actually reduces crime
(12:24):
when you prevent it.
You just have to have strategiesthat do work to do that.
You know, you it's good to havean evidence base for that.
But also, you know, but theyalso think that people should be
held accountable for crime.
And I think to be totally like,you know, to be very honest
about this, I think one of thechallenges for some Democrats
(12:46):
from 2020, 2021, 2022 was thatit sounded like to a lot of
people, we didn't think crimewas a problem.
And if you don't think crime isa problem, people are going to
think you are not likely to domuch about it.
Okay.
And my one of my singularexperiences from working in
(13:08):
policy making and for threepresidents is, you know, this is
just like how I see the world.
If people really think somethingis a problem and it is a high
priority problem for them, theywill choose a bad answer over a
no answer.
Now, I still believe people willchoose a good answer over a bad
(13:28):
answer.
Sometimes that is kind of testedin the political process, but I
still believe in that.
But I think one of the reasonswhy CAP put forward this plan is
because we believe it'simportant for everyone who
believes in like safety andsecurity to offer ideas of how
you can reduce crime.
And as I said earlier, you don'thave to go to really, you know,
(13:53):
kind of the failed policies ofthe past or this like tough on
crime rhetoric, which is reallyjust about extending extending
sentences to actually reducecrime in a way that's very
effective.
But Democrats should acknowledgethat the broad public believes
lawbreakers should be heldaccountable.
This is not a radical statementto me.
(14:14):
I think it's not this shouldn'tbe a radical statement for
people.
I do think if you believe inmaking sure lawbreakers are
accountable, when they do theirtime and they're done with their
time, you want to encourage themto get into a pathway, a job, or
be a productive citizen and notuse their prior sentence as like
a life scarlet letter A, whichlimits their opportunities to do
(14:38):
anything other than crime.
So like I think we should justbe smart about this.
And you people could meet in themiddle and in the localities,
they kind of have met in themiddle.
SPEAKER_00 (14:47):
Is there like a phrase that we can use that's
not I I hate tough on crime?
I wish it was like, you know,shot into the sun and never
heard from again.
I feel like it used to be smarton crime was like a thing that
people could say that was this,you know, we're gonna this
middle ground.
Is there a phrase that canreplace that as the, you know,
the one that you you sort ofacknowledge crime as an issue
(15:09):
that's important that we takecare of, but not take care of by
repeating the mistakes of the90s?
Is there work?
What's the chigo here?
SPEAKER_01 (15:18):
I believe, like, we talk about, you know,
accountability for crime and andand stopping crime.
You know, like just we're we wekind of think like you could do
both of those prevention andaccountability.
But accountability isn't, youknow, lock people away and throw
away the key.
And we should acknowledge that,and we acknowledge in our in our
(15:41):
plans that this criminal justicesystem has been one that where
punishments have beendisproportionate for people of
color.
That fact that we have in theUnited States made going to
prison a kind of lifetimesentence in a way, you know,
it's been reallycounterproductive.
(16:02):
It's hurt those peopleindividually, not giving them a
second chance.
But also it's it's it drivespoverty.
It makes us much less productiveas a country if you basically
take people who have ever had uhessentially a criminal sentence
and kind of move them out of thekind of productive economy.
That that is also kind ofstupid.
(16:23):
So I think there's a smarter wayto go forward.
I'll think about a betterexpression.
Smart on crime was a good one.
Um certain vice president uhcame up with it when she was an
attorney general, wrote a wholebook about it.
Very complicated field uh here.
So I think you're right.
It like trying to connote theidea that crime is a problem,
(16:44):
but we don't have to engage inthe failures of the past.
Uh that is a that is what we'retrying to do, and I'll I'll work
on an expression, but welcomeyour ideas as well.
SPEAKER_00 (16:53):
I'll I'll think about that as well, and maybe
I'll bring it up to my kids andhave them come up with
something.
Um so let's, you know, let'sfast forward.
It's let's say it's 2028 andright now we're seeing historic
drops.
Let's say that those drops don'tcontinue.
You know, we're at this reallylow level, but we're not seeing
crime continue to fall.
(17:13):
At some point, crime is gonnastop falling.
We're not gonna reach zeromurders, unfortunately.
I don't think so.
How would you advise sort ofthat political message to both
Democrats or Republicans ifcrime is the the declines have
stopped, we're at this lowlevel, maybe we're starting to
see slight increases relative towhere we were before.
But how can we how would youadvise sort of politically not
(17:37):
denying that reality of hey,it's not going down anymore,
while also then not leaning intobad policies and not requiring
people to take the toughest oncrime approaches as possible?
SPEAKER_01 (17:49):
You know, I think people would have more
credibility when if they see acrime spike, if they deal with
crime, you know, wheneverwhenever like in their in their
basic job as governors or mayorsor or leaders.
And I think that because as youknow, crime is declining now, it
(18:10):
has been declining, and yetpeople still think crime is a
pretty significant problem.
And I think this is a bigdisconnect for people, which is
crime is not like other issues.
Okay.
So, you know, whether peoplehave health care or they have
energy tax credits, like more ofit is a good thing, less of it
(18:31):
is a bad thing.
I think crime is a verydifferent kind of event in
people's lives.
You know, people, it all it'svery shocking, you know, even
getting mugged is very shocking.
It creates a sense of greaterfear and instability.
So crime is really an issue, andI know I'm saying like a very
(18:52):
basic thing, but any of it isbad.
Okay, so if you're a mayor andyour crime comes down, you know,
like you have your crime went up25% and it came down 25%.
It's not like you're like, okay,we just don't need the police
anymore.
You know, like you wanteverybody wants, no one wants to
(19:15):
be victimized by crime, so yourjob is to always lower it.
And what's really interestingabout the debate today is we
seem so trapped in the debatesof the 90s.
Because what's interesting is wehave a big social experiment
over the last five years, right?
We saw a big crime spike at thesame time.
The federal government sent alot of money to states and
(19:38):
localities.
Those states and localities didall kinds of different things to
drive lower crime rates.
I mean, we don't we don't havewe don't know for sure any
answer, but we do know thatlocalities innovated in
different ways and they did seelike really sharp declines.
And there are a th there arethings that a lot of localities
(20:00):
did.
They hired or retained policeofficers with those funds, they
invested in prevention programs,they also adopted particular
strategies like real-time crimecenters and focused deterrence
and even hotspot policing.
You know, there's a bunch ofstrategies that localities chose
adopted, and we saw greatreductions.
(20:20):
So, from our perspective, Iwould advise someone in 2028, if
we're seeing a crime spike, tohave ideas that and and base
them on what's effective andwhat's worked at the local level
and how you can make acompelling case that Baltimore
did this thing and it its crimerates came down.
But I also think you'll have alot more credibility on these
(20:41):
issues if you talk about thembefore you're facing the voters
as a mayor or as a governor oras even a senator or a house
member.
Because I think the truth isit's not like you can lower
crime too much in most people'sminds.
Like you don't, you could lower,you know, we could all live in a
police state and have no crime,you know, like that's not what
(21:04):
anyone wants.
But there's a big area for notviolating people's civil rights,
having smart strategies, andlowering crime rates.
SPEAKER_00 (21:15):
To that uh point, is there a way to convince people
that that crime is falling?
I mean, that it's it's the thebane of my existence is that no
matter what's happening, uh, youknow, in especially in like
2023, 2024, when I was, I feltlike a lonely voice talking
about the degree to which crimewas falling.
Is is there out there in thewild at least, is is there a way
(21:38):
to get people to believe goodnews on crime?
SPEAKER_01 (21:40):
Yeah, I mean, I think this really is much more
of an issue around local newscoverage and kind of the
orientation of the media, whichis that if it bleeds, it leads.
And there is a lot of interestin crimes, and I think it takes
much more.
Uh, police chiefs andprosecutors to talk about lower
(22:03):
crime rates than politicians.
And I mean, I d I'm very I had aparticular experience.
I was president's domesticpolicy advisor.
We saw crime come downdramatically.
We religiously read all yourmaterial that was much faster.
You know, you uh what was reallywhat's really great about you is
that you're able to track crimerates a lot faster than the FBI.
(22:27):
So you actually can, you know,you can see what's happening
much, much closely, much, muchfaster.
And that's crucial as apolicymaker because addressing
trends that are two years old,not that helpful and uh helpful
these days.
So we saw crime rates comingdown, and I think the real, I
think a real issue that we hadwas perhaps because people have
(22:50):
kind of preconceived notionsthat Democrats don't take crime
seriously enough.
The president, you know, wouldsay went into the State of the
Union and said, crime is comingdown and we've done these things
to help crime come down.
And I think a lot of peopleheard that, given their sense
that crime is still a problem,as we didn't, we didn't get it,
that crime is still a problem.
(23:12):
And so I think when a politicalleader, this is just, you know,
my experience here was trying totell people it's a little bit
about like the economy.
If people feel like the economyis bad, if you try to tell them
over and over again that theeconomy is great, they're going
to, they're not gonna think mylived experience is wrong.
They're going to think thepolitician is lying.
(23:33):
So the people who can bestdeliver the news, the good news
on crime, are people withcredibility on crime.
I think that's police chiefs.
I think it's like members, likethe police, it could be the
prosecutors, it could be judges,like people who don't have a
stake in trying to convince you.
But I also think, you know,crime is not as salient an
(23:53):
issue.
People still think crime is likea big problem.
It's going up, but it's it haschanged in salience to people,
at least in the polling we'veseen from 2022, 2023.
There was like top five issue,top four or five issue to one of
the top four or five issues tothe public.
Maybe the top six issues.
Now it's dropped to like the top10, maybe the top 12.
(24:16):
Yeah.
But to me, I believe that it'sreally crucial for leaders to
have a plan that they cancommunicate.
And, you know, there's no, likeagain, we're not create
recreating the problems of thepast.
So we don't see the downside inactually offering ideas that can
help even lower your crime ratemore.
SPEAKER_00 (24:36):
Is there a way?
I feel like I asked this toevery guest, but I think that
it's such a critical question,which is is there a way for the
media to cover sort of cover theplanes that land to cover the
fact that, hey, robbery's down30%?
We're seeing this big decline inthese crimes.
It's hard to write a storythat's there were no crimes last
week.
It's easy to write a story ofthere were six crimes last week
(24:58):
and they were terrible.
How is this something that at avery local level can be covered
better?
SPEAKER_01 (25:04):
Yeah, you know, I think that's a really great
question.
And I think localities, uh,local press would be the best.
And I I do want to say, I mean,I'm happy to beat up on local
media, but I think another realproblem in the country is that
we just have less local mediathan we used to have.
I mean, there's just fewer localthere's just fewer outlets
(25:25):
covering local news in the sameway.
But I also I do think, you know,we have all these moments where
we kind of nationally look atdata.
There's a monthly unemploymentrate.
There's nothing that stopslocalities from looking at their
sort of monthly year-over-yearhomicide rate or even doing that
(25:45):
quarterly or in their violentcrime rates and really trying to
track for their readers that,you know, violent crime has come
down.
Again, any violent crime is bad.
You know, this is like a thingwhere it's like it's a shocking
event to anybody.
We would like less of it, youknow, we like less cancer.
We'd like, it's like cancer cancome down, you'd like to get to
zero.
So, you know, I think that, butI do think you could have a lot
(26:09):
more just check-ins, like once amonth or once every quarter or
once every six months, justwhere crime is and to write a, I
mean, you know, like I know itdoesn't catch as many eyeballs,
but writing a story about aboutlower crime rates, you know,
would be important.
And I think the thing that youcan remember about this is, you
know, people don't translate itthis way, but when you have
(26:31):
lower crime rates, you know,that means people are alive
today that might not have beenalive, you know, when you had
really high crime rates, right?
I mean, the thing that reducingcrime and reducing murders and
homicides for for sure is thatlike, you know, these are again
kind of transformative events.
Like being shot is a prettypsychologically damaging and
(26:51):
health-damaging idea, even ifyou're like even if you survive
it.
So when you have reduced reducedcrime, like this is a huge
improvement in people's livesand their lived experience.
So it should be a good story.
SPEAKER_00 (27:04):
It should be, yeah.
And you're looking at probably5,000 fewer murder victims per
year than that.
SPEAKER_01 (27:09):
Yeah, but that's what I tried to.
The president, I I talked aboutthis with the private president
Biden.
We did an event with majorchiefs like almost two years
ago, probably two years ago now.
I mean, you know, we had majorchiefs from at the White House,
from you know, from Detroit andMiami, you know, two places that
have just like 50-year lows andhomicides, and we had a bunch of
(27:31):
from all across the country, LosAngeles, Charlotte, big and
small, so Philadelphia.
And, you know, he talked alittle bit about this, but you
know, when you have 5,000 fewerhomicides, I mean, a way to
think about that is like thisfor a variety of reasons, but I
do think policy is important.
(27:52):
You're having hot spot policingand more police, et cetera, as
well as prevention programs,when you do those things, I
mean, you have people walkingaround and like alive that may
have been killed in some, youknow, at some prior point.
So it's a big difference.
It makes a big difference incommunities and it makes a big
difference in how people feelabout like living in cities and
(28:13):
being close to other people.
You know, I mean, these arethese are really profound
effects to lower crime rates.
SPEAKER_00 (28:19):
There's obviously a lot going on in the world right
now.
Not sure if you're aware.
SPEAKER_01 (28:23):
Uh, it's very cracking.
There's a lot going on in theworld today.
SPEAKER_00 (28:30):
Um, is there a way that this issue, not just crime,
but sort of criminal justice andit improving the system and in
ensuring clearance rates is atop priority and reducing crime.
How can all of this stay at theforefront of policymaker
attention given, you know,waving hands all about
everything that's happening?
SPEAKER_01 (28:51):
Yeah, you know, in our research, I think that what
was most interesting is thatprobably the best thing a
locality can do.
Again, I kind of, you know, youyou have a lot of wisdom on
these topics, so I welcome yourview.
But is it just speeding up theentire criminal justice justice
(29:13):
system?
So people are gettingpunishment.
Like, you know, they know whatthey're putting, they're they
feel like if I'm caught, I willlikely be punished quickly.
It doesn't, again, you don'thave to be give people lots of
sentences, but if they areguilty of a crime, they should
be punished quickly.
And it and in our view, givensecond chances when they're out,
et cetera.
(29:34):
You know, but that's aninteresting thing, you know,
because it's not like there'sany single group responsible for
that.
That's often the state,sometimes it's a locality.
It's very opaque, kind ofcontrols the wheels of the
justice system.
And we try to address that by,in our plan, kind of encouraging
funding to beef up that in thoseinstitutions, essentially, and
(29:58):
allow them to move a lot faster.
But that's an area where I thinkit's just like I it's easier for
a politician to a local mayor tosay, I've added police or I've
invested in prevention programs.
And it's a little bit harder forthem to communicate how
investing in their localcriminal justice system, having
(30:20):
more public defenders andprosecutors, but public
defenders too, helps actuallyensure a better system that
keeps all of us safe.
I mean, it takes kind of a fewparagraphs to explain that, not
just a few sentences.
And often one of the challengesin public policy is things that
take longer to explain getadapted a little less, just
(30:40):
because people see less value indoing it.
But here, that's you know, it'sreally important to actually do
the right thing to save people'slives.
You know, so hopefully they'lldo it.
SPEAKER_00 (30:50):
Well, I I see that in my newsletter every week that
the uh the more interesting,detailed, you know, in-depth of
investigations, you get nothing,and then you're like, well,
crime is down, and then that'sthose are the ones that get
shared, and everyone hears that.
So certainly uh I know we justhave a few minutes left.
I wanted to ask real quick, uh,this is something I've I've been
asking every guest.
(31:10):
I'm really curious to hear yourthoughts on this, given your
experience.
How do you think AI is going tochange sort of the approach to
all of this or the policymakerapproach in the near future?
And do you have any sort ofsuggestions on changing
perceptions of AI adoption?
I know this is sort of out inthe left field, but I'm I'm
curious to hear your thoughts onthat.
SPEAKER_01 (31:29):
So so I I feel like I I was very fortunate.
I sat on the president's AIcouncil.
There was an AI council in theWhite House, and sort of had I
was on it, and obviouslyNational Security Council was on
it, and um, various policycouncils uh sat on it.
And you know, what's what'sreally interesting is one of the
(31:50):
big problems in the criminaljustice system, and one of the
real drivers of unfairness inthe criminal justice system is
human bias, right?
I mean, there's been lots andlots and lots of data that
eyewitnesses are less reliable,they will bring in sort of
unconscious bias towards racialgroups that also could infect
(32:14):
policing.
A lot of cases of, you know,police involve shootings are
ones where, you know, you're ina moment and you're just making
hasty decisions, though can thiscan also involve human bias.
I mean, the truth is the jurysystem has a lot of human
biases.
So I I am not actually arguingthat we should replace juries
(32:36):
with AI or um or other, youknow, kind of take out the human
of the process.
But I think if we had AI systemsthat were better at correcting
biases instead of amplifyingthose biases, it's a little hard
because AI AIs are programmed bypeople.
(32:59):
But a system, and you know, likeit's criminal justice, but it
could be like who you're givinga mortgage to.
You know, I mean, we have lotsof data, and essentially black
families are chart chargedhigher interest rates with the
same income and then the samehistory because there are biases
that they experience in thesystem.
And a lot of them can be sort ofunconscious.
(33:21):
People aren't really thinking.
I have this thing in my mindabout what a woman versus a man
or a Latino versus a whiteperson or a black person versus
an Asian.
I mean, there are a lot ofbiases in the system.
So if there are ways to thinkabout, I tried to encourage
this, it was a little hard andvery nascent, but if there are
ways to think about how AI couldfight against those biases and
(33:45):
not entrench them, I actuallythink we'd have a lot more
justice than we do.
And you'd have like some of theareas where you see these
gigantic differentials betweencrack cocaine and cocaine, or
you know, uh, some of theseconversations in the past are, I
think, a function of just biaseskind of running up against each
(34:05):
other and like kind of likebuilding on top of each other in
the criminal justice system.
SPEAKER_00 (34:10):
Yeah, we we definitely see that in the like
the research into the algorithmshows that the algorithm is
unbiased, but taking that a stepfurther is is is biased, excuse
me, not other bias.
Um, but it's less biased thanthat human judge.
Um, I've been new words, andthere's there's research into
cases in Louisiana where if LSUloses in football, judges have
(34:30):
harsher penalties the next dayin court.
And so, like, how do you removeall that?
Well, an algorithm that's notperfect.
So I appreciate that.
SPEAKER_01 (34:38):
Yes, exactly.
I mean, and you know, like withanything, I think, you know, we
never get to nirvana, but likeyou always have to kind of try
to get better and better.
And like I I definitely am opento thinking about ways that AI
can be helpful.
It shouldn't replace humans,particularly in life and death
decisions like this.
That's obviously kind of out ofa sci-fi murder or sci-fi movie,
(35:00):
you know, to have like AIreplacing humans.
Um, but I think I think weshould be genuinely honest that
we over-index for human judgmentbeing unbiased than it is.
And it is a big reason forinequality in a lot of systems
that humans are are bringingtheir bias to decision making.
SPEAKER_00 (35:23):
Absolutely.
Nira, I I really appreciate youcoming on.
This has been a fascinating andfantastic conversation.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_01 (35:29):
And I hope people will check out our cap plan on
American and our AmericanProgress website.
SPEAKER_00 (35:34):
I was just gonna say, where can people find it?
So, CAP, American Progresswebsite, go check it out.
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_01 (35:40):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_00 (35:42):
Thanks for listening to the Jeffalytics Podcast.
Be sure to subscribe and tolearn more, head on over to
ahdatalytics.com for moreinformation and previous
episodes.
If you like what you heard,please leave a glowing review,
which will help others todiscover the show.
Till next time, I'm Jeff Asher.
I'm Jeff Asher, and this is the Jeffalytics Podcast.
Most debates about crime policyare framed as a choice.
You're either tough on crime oryou're not.
You focus on enforcement or youfocus on prevention.
And the answers tend to soundsimple.
But once you move from talkingabout crime to actually trying
to reduce it, things get morecomplicated, requiring nuanced
solutions to complex problems.
(00:22):
My guest today is Nira Tannen,president and CEO of the Center
for American Progress and alongtime policy advisor who has
worked across multipleadministrations, including
serving as domestic policyadvisor in the Biden White
House.
In this episode, we talk aboutwhat crime policy looks like
from inside that system.
What we've learned from the lastfew years, and why approaches
(00:42):
focused on accountability andprevention don't have to be in
conflict.
We also get into the gap betweenwhat's politically compelling
and what's actually effective,and why solving this problem is
harder than the debate makes itsound.
Let's get started.
My guest today is Neer Tandon.
Neera, thank you so much forjoining me.
SPEAKER_01 (00:59):
Great to be with you.
SPEAKER_00 (01:02):
So, first question to every guest
background?
What brought you here today?
And then I'm going to add anaddendum to that that I don't
normally get to ask every guestis what is it like working at
the White House?
So uh I I I'm very curious tohear this answer.
SPEAKER_01 (01:17):
I'll take this in order.
I'm currently the CEO andpresident of the Center for
American Progress, which is amulti-issue think tank in
Washington.
It's uh, you know, we're kind ofon the center left.
And so but our goal is really totry to solve problems, you know,
develop ideas to solve problems.
We have policy teams andnational security, economic
(01:37):
policy, domestic policy, and wehave a crime and criminal
justice team.
And it's that team that reallyhas authored our work on crime.
Um before that, I was domesticpolicy advisor to President
Biden, who's also staffsecretary, um, which before that
role, where which is in chargeof informational flow in the
White House, is a reallyinteresting job.
(01:58):
But the domestic policy counciljob is one in which you are
overseeing domestic policy forthe president of the United
States, and it was a reallyamazing job and a great
privilege.
Before that, I'd worked at CAPuh for about a decade.
I was I was also its CEO andpresident before then.
I helped start CAP way back in2000, and I've served in three
(02:20):
White Houses.
I I served on the DomesticPolicy Council on in the way
back in the Clinton, in thesecond term of the Clinton White
House.
Um was a lot younger then.
Do you want to note that?
Uh, and then I worked onhealthcare reform for President
Obama.
So I have a lot of policyexperience.
(02:42):
And in the late 90s, when Iworked for President Clinton, I
did a lot of work on, I was onthe children and families team
and the domestic policy council,and we did a lot of work on
school violence and collaboratedwith the crime team back then on
kids and access to guns.
I've worked in, as I said, inthe White House, but I've also
(03:03):
worked on a variety ofpresidential campaigns, Hillary
Clinton's presidential campaign,Barack Obama's presidential
campaign.
I've worked on crime issues inall of those areas.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
So I have a very boring CAP story, which is in
2006 when I was in in gradschool at GW, I interned with a
group called the NationalSecurity Networks that like sort
of had one office in CAP.
And so I went to CAP's officefrequently during for a couple
of months back then, and then Igot a job with the intelligence
community and was off.
SPEAKER_01 (03:35):
But um yeah, that's pretty cool.
Well, we were we're the samebuilding now.
We have the bottom four floorsinstead of being spread out.
So it's much better.
SPEAKER_00 (03:43):
That's that sounds nice.
So where do you see CAP fittingin on sort of the criminal
justice policy making process?
SPEAKER_01 (03:55):
Um, I you know, I think we're really trying to
offer ideas of how to, you know,improve public safety, lower
crime in the United States.
Um and I think this is a debatethat's become, like many
debates, highly politicized.
And our goal was is to offerkind of evidence-based
(04:16):
solutions.
Crime is an interesting issuebecause even when it comes down,
you know, it's still a badthing.
So you know it's not like, youknow, people, you know, if
you're a victim of crime, evenif it's there's less crime in
the neighborhood, you're still avictim.
So it is, it is something thatyou really want to drive down as
far as you possibly can from apolicy perspective.
(04:37):
So, you know, I think sometimesin some circles, you know, uh
you'll have a lot of discourseof crime is coming down.
Why do we need to do anything?
And I think this is a realmistake.
For those of us who believe in agovernment that works for people
and strong government, we haveto deliver results.
And what's really interesting isthat we I think we've learned a
(04:58):
lot about what works over thelast several years.
We've had real deep declines incrime.
You know, I welcome, you know,your views on why that has
happened.
But we have seen a lot of policyvariation and innovation at the
local level.
Uh, and what we try to do in ourwork is look at what's working
around the country and thencreate a guide, essentially a
(05:21):
policy guide of best practiceswhere, you know, at the national
level, we could drive down crimeeven more if we kind of got out
of our partisan corners andthought about how to actually
solve this problem even betterthan we are right now.
SPEAKER_00 (05:35):
So I I want to dig deeper on that.
You guys have put out a lot ofof reports and things like that.
Is there a without you know thistaking several hours to
summarize all of the reports, isthere a general guidelines,
general thoughts, generaldirection that you see that Cap
sees as far as like howpolicymakers should approach
things in a realistic direction?
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Yeah, I'd say first and foremost, we, and this is
again all based on evidence, youknow, we understand or we
believe that the best way toreduce crime is for people
would-be criminals, to believethat they will be punished if
they commit crime.
And I think this is a reallyimportant issue because in the
(06:18):
90s, and you know, you still seethis in the debates, there's a
lot of discussion about thelength of sentencing.
So if you just expand the lengthof sentencing for crimes, it,
you know, people will arguethey're reducing crime.
But that's not actually what theevidence dictates.
It's the evidence shows that,you know, people don't think
about the future so much.
(06:38):
It's much more about thecertainty of punishment for
lawbreakers.
And so, you know, and and welearned a lot during COVID,
which is that there is someresearch, and I totally I really
would do welcome your views onthis, but there's some research
that indicates that one of thereasons why we had a spike was
because the system of justicekind of slowed down.
It was harder to get courtcases, everything kind of slowed
(07:01):
down, and that impacted people'skind of decision-making about
these things.
So we believe that you shouldensure the system is working to
deliver.
You want to, you know, we have abunch of strategies to lower,
like increase the clearancerate, ensure crimes are actually
punished with strategies thathave worked in place in country
(07:21):
and cities around the country.
We also believe, you know, fromdata that there are prevention
strategies that have beensuccessful.
And then there are particularareas where where, you know, we
have we've seen some surges incrime and you know, that raise
some significant problems thatwe want to address.
But at a very high level, Ithink thematically we believe
(07:44):
it's important to ensure, youknow, swift and certain
punishments to hold lawbreakersaccountable and also invest in
strategies, policing strategies,and prevention strategies that
work.
And, you know, what'sinteresting about this to me is
that you have progressive mayorsin places like Baltimore that
have increased detectives andincreased police officers, and
(08:08):
also worked on, you know, kindof innovative crime fighting
slash prevention strategies likefocused deterrence and have seen
great results.
And I think that's what you knowwe're focused on.
What would actually work toreduce crime?
What are the strategies that areworking?
And we don't have to relive thekind of bad policy decisions of
(08:28):
the 90s or things that hadreally negative effects, like
just expanding sentences foreverybody and not giving them a
second chance.
We strongly believe in secondchances, but we also know we
should, we should build on whatwe know it works.
SPEAKER_00 (08:44):
Is there a sort of bipartisan path for achieving
this, especially sort offocusing on the swiftness and
the certainty and improvingclearance rates?
It's it feels like that'ssomething that I know Utah just
passed a law and signed a lawthat says that um that was can
provide grants to agencies toimprove their violent crime
clearance rates.
(09:05):
Is this something, and have youguys done any work on sort of a
taking that as the bipartisan,okay, this is something that
across the political spectrum wecan all agree on is a thing to
do?
SPEAKER_01 (09:15):
Yeah, so I think this is what's really
interesting, because at thelocal level, this is very
bipartisan.
You have moderate mayors,progressive mayors, I mean, not
every progressive mayor, but alot of progressive mayors taking
on strategies that do work.
I just mentioned Baltimore.
And, you know, it's interesting,Mayor Mamdani hasn't really
(09:37):
repealed any of the strategies,or like at a high level, has not
really repealed the strategiesthat he that were, you know,
having a good impact on loweringcrime rates.
And so I hope at the nationallevel we could actually have
bipartisan efforts.
I worry that, you know, crimehas been basically used a
little, you know, and I argue,you know, I don't mean to be
(10:00):
partisan here, but Republicanshave kind of often used crime as
a wedge to attack Democrats.
And, you know, there's been somereporting that the president of
the White House planned to usecrime again in the fall
elections.
And so, you know, I hope we canget out of this kind of
hyperpolarization we're in.
But I think as you mentioned,Utah, you know, I mean, places
(10:23):
like Illinois have focused onactually trying to address their
clearance rate problems.
And uh I think they are, youknow, they have to live with the
consequences of crime.
So I think they have a lot ofmore s a lot more skin in the
game in a way.
And so we see a lot ofbipartisanship there.
And I hope that that carries onuh at the national level.
SPEAKER_00 (10:44):
You uh you talked about sort of the Republican
approach to to crime and thiskind of instinctual, I guess,
you know, we have to be tough oncrime, we have to increase
sentences, which it felt likefor about a decade was going
away and is kind of making itsway back into the national
discourse.
Taking on the other side ofthat, is there a way for
(11:05):
Democrats to uh we saw this alot in 2020, and then in the
reaction of the last few years,it felt like, and maybe I'm
wrong and you feel differently,but it felt like the responses
were either ignoring when thingswere getting worse, which they
were in the sort of that 2020 to2022 period, or when it the the
(11:27):
only response was, well, wegotta get tough on crime.
Is there a way for Democrats tosort of ignore that false
dichotomy of either it has to begoing down or we our response
has to be we have to be tough oncrime?
I'm sorry, that's a littlecounseling.
SPEAKER_01 (11:41):
That's a great question.
And I think we are trying tooffer ideas right in that space.
Okay.
So if someone is punished, youknow, for shooting someone and
not killing them, you know, weknow from the data that people
who get away with certaincrimes, you know, could tend to
(12:03):
commit more crimes.
So, you know, my view of this isI think like people are kind of
in the middle on this topic.
You know, the vast majority ofthe public is kind of you know
in the middle.
They think we should invest inprevention, they think it's
better to prevent crime.
So it's not just soft to preventcrime, it actually reduces crime
(12:24):
when you prevent it.
You just have to have strategiesthat do work to do that.
You know, you it's good to havean evidence base for that.
But also, you know, but theyalso think that people should be
held accountable for crime.
And I think to be totally like,you know, to be very honest
about this, I think one of thechallenges for some Democrats
(12:46):
from 2020, 2021, 2022 was thatit sounded like to a lot of
people, we didn't think crimewas a problem.
And if you don't think crime isa problem, people are going to
think you are not likely to domuch about it.
Okay.
And my one of my singularexperiences from working in
(13:08):
policy making and for threepresidents is, you know, this is
just like how I see the world.
If people really think somethingis a problem and it is a high
priority problem for them, theywill choose a bad answer over a
no answer.
Now, I still believe people willchoose a good answer over a bad
(13:28):
answer.
Sometimes that is kind of testedin the political process, but I
still believe in that.
But I think one of the reasonswhy CAP put forward this plan is
because we believe it'simportant for everyone who
believes in like safety andsecurity to offer ideas of how
you can reduce crime.
And as I said earlier, you don'thave to go to really, you know,
(13:53):
kind of the failed policies ofthe past or this like tough on
crime rhetoric, which is reallyjust about extending extending
sentences to actually reducecrime in a way that's very
effective.
But Democrats should acknowledgethat the broad public believes
lawbreakers should be heldaccountable.
This is not a radical statementto me.
(14:14):
I think it's not this shouldn'tbe a radical statement for
people.
I do think if you believe inmaking sure lawbreakers are
accountable, when they do theirtime and they're done with their
time, you want to encourage themto get into a pathway, a job, or
be a productive citizen and notuse their prior sentence as like
a life scarlet letter A, whichlimits their opportunities to do
(14:38):
anything other than crime.
So like I think we should justbe smart about this.
And you people could meet in themiddle and in the localities,
they kind of have met in themiddle.
SPEAKER_00 (14:47):
Is there like a phrase that we can use that's
not I I hate tough on crime?
I wish it was like, you know,shot into the sun and never
heard from again.
I feel like it used to be smarton crime was like a thing that
people could say that was this,you know, we're gonna this
middle ground.
Is there a phrase that canreplace that as the, you know,
the one that you you sort ofacknowledge crime as an issue
(15:09):
that's important that we takecare of, but not take care of by
repeating the mistakes of the90s?
Is there work?
What's the chigo here?
SPEAKER_01 (15:18):
I believe, like, we talk about, you know,
accountability for crime and andand stopping crime.
You know, like just we're we wekind of think like you could do
both of those prevention andaccountability.
But accountability isn't, youknow, lock people away and throw
away the key.
And we should acknowledge that,and we acknowledge in our in our
(15:41):
plans that this criminal justicesystem has been one that where
punishments have beendisproportionate for people of
color.
That fact that we have in theUnited States made going to
prison a kind of lifetimesentence in a way, you know,
it's been reallycounterproductive.
(16:02):
It's hurt those peopleindividually, not giving them a
second chance.
But also it's it's it drivespoverty.
It makes us much less productiveas a country if you basically
take people who have ever had uhessentially a criminal sentence
and kind of move them out of thekind of productive economy.
That that is also kind ofstupid.
(16:23):
So I think there's a smarter wayto go forward.
I'll think about a betterexpression.
Smart on crime was a good one.
Um certain vice president uhcame up with it when she was an
attorney general, wrote a wholebook about it.
Very complicated field uh here.
So I think you're right.
It like trying to connote theidea that crime is a problem,
(16:44):
but we don't have to engage inthe failures of the past.
Uh that is a that is what we'retrying to do, and I'll I'll work
on an expression, but welcomeyour ideas as well.
SPEAKER_00 (16:53):
I'll I'll think about that as well, and maybe
I'll bring it up to my kids andhave them come up with
something.
Um so let's, you know, let'sfast forward.
It's let's say it's 2028 andright now we're seeing historic
drops.
Let's say that those drops don'tcontinue.
You know, we're at this reallylow level, but we're not seeing
crime continue to fall.
(17:13):
At some point, crime is gonnastop falling.
We're not gonna reach zeromurders, unfortunately.
I don't think so.
How would you advise sort ofthat political message to both
Democrats or Republicans ifcrime is the the declines have
stopped, we're at this lowlevel, maybe we're starting to
see slight increases relative towhere we were before.
But how can we how would youadvise sort of politically not
(17:37):
denying that reality of hey,it's not going down anymore,
while also then not leaning intobad policies and not requiring
people to take the toughest oncrime approaches as possible?
SPEAKER_01 (17:49):
You know, I think people would have more
credibility when if they see acrime spike, if they deal with
crime, you know, wheneverwhenever like in their in their
basic job as governors or mayorsor or leaders.
And I think that because as youknow, crime is declining now, it
(18:10):
has been declining, and yetpeople still think crime is a
pretty significant problem.
And I think this is a bigdisconnect for people, which is
crime is not like other issues.
Okay.
So, you know, whether peoplehave health care or they have
energy tax credits, like more ofit is a good thing, less of it
(18:31):
is a bad thing.
I think crime is a verydifferent kind of event in
people's lives.
You know, people, it all it'svery shocking, you know, even
getting mugged is very shocking.
It creates a sense of greaterfear and instability.
So crime is really an issue, andI know I'm saying like a very
(18:52):
basic thing, but any of it isbad.
Okay, so if you're a mayor andyour crime comes down, you know,
like you have your crime went up25% and it came down 25%.
It's not like you're like, okay,we just don't need the police
anymore.
You know, like you wanteverybody wants, no one wants to
(19:15):
be victimized by crime, so yourjob is to always lower it.
And what's really interestingabout the debate today is we
seem so trapped in the debatesof the 90s.
Because what's interesting is wehave a big social experiment
over the last five years, right?
We saw a big crime spike at thesame time.
The federal government sent alot of money to states and
(19:38):
localities.
Those states and localities didall kinds of different things to
drive lower crime rates.
I mean, we don't we don't havewe don't know for sure any
answer, but we do know thatlocalities innovated in
different ways and they did seelike really sharp declines.
And there are a th there arethings that a lot of localities
(20:00):
did.
They hired or retained policeofficers with those funds, they
invested in prevention programs,they also adopted particular
strategies like real-time crimecenters and focused deterrence
and even hotspot policing.
You know, there's a bunch ofstrategies that localities chose
adopted, and we saw greatreductions.
(20:20):
So, from our perspective, Iwould advise someone in 2028, if
we're seeing a crime spike, tohave ideas that and and base
them on what's effective andwhat's worked at the local level
and how you can make acompelling case that Baltimore
did this thing and it its crimerates came down.
But I also think you'll have alot more credibility on these
(20:41):
issues if you talk about thembefore you're facing the voters
as a mayor or as a governor oras even a senator or a house
member.
Because I think the truth isit's not like you can lower
crime too much in most people'sminds.
Like you don't, you could lower,you know, we could all live in a
police state and have no crime,you know, like that's not what
(21:04):
anyone wants.
But there's a big area for notviolating people's civil rights,
having smart strategies, andlowering crime rates.
SPEAKER_00 (21:15):
To that uh point, is there a way to convince people
that that crime is falling?
I mean, that it's it's the thebane of my existence is that no
matter what's happening, uh, youknow, in especially in like
2023, 2024, when I was, I feltlike a lonely voice talking
about the degree to which crimewas falling.
Is is there out there in thewild at least, is is there a way
(21:38):
to get people to believe goodnews on crime?
SPEAKER_01 (21:40):
Yeah, I mean, I think this really is much more
of an issue around local newscoverage and kind of the
orientation of the media, whichis that if it bleeds, it leads.
And there is a lot of interestin crimes, and I think it takes
much more.
Uh, police chiefs andprosecutors to talk about lower
(22:03):
crime rates than politicians.
And I mean, I d I'm very I had aparticular experience.
I was president's domesticpolicy advisor.
We saw crime come downdramatically.
We religiously read all yourmaterial that was much faster.
You know, you uh what was reallywhat's really great about you is
that you're able to track crimerates a lot faster than the FBI.
(22:27):
So you actually can, you know,you can see what's happening
much, much closely, much, muchfaster.
And that's crucial as apolicymaker because addressing
trends that are two years old,not that helpful and uh helpful
these days.
So we saw crime rates comingdown, and I think the real, I
think a real issue that we hadwas perhaps because people have
(22:50):
kind of preconceived notionsthat Democrats don't take crime
seriously enough.
The president, you know, wouldsay went into the State of the
Union and said, crime is comingdown and we've done these things
to help crime come down.
And I think a lot of peopleheard that, given their sense
that crime is still a problem,as we didn't, we didn't get it,
that crime is still a problem.
(23:12):
And so I think when a politicalleader, this is just, you know,
my experience here was trying totell people it's a little bit
about like the economy.
If people feel like the economyis bad, if you try to tell them
over and over again that theeconomy is great, they're going
to, they're not gonna think mylived experience is wrong.
They're going to think thepolitician is lying.
(23:33):
So the people who can bestdeliver the news, the good news
on crime, are people withcredibility on crime.
I think that's police chiefs.
I think it's like members, likethe police, it could be the
prosecutors, it could be judges,like people who don't have a
stake in trying to convince you.
But I also think, you know,crime is not as salient an
(23:53):
issue.
People still think crime is likea big problem.
It's going up, but it's it haschanged in salience to people,
at least in the polling we'veseen from 2022, 2023.
There was like top five issue,top four or five issue to one of
the top four or five issues tothe public.
Maybe the top six issues.
Now it's dropped to like the top10, maybe the top 12.
(24:16):
Yeah.
But to me, I believe that it'sreally crucial for leaders to
have a plan that they cancommunicate.
And, you know, there's no, likeagain, we're not create
recreating the problems of thepast.
So we don't see the downside inactually offering ideas that can
help even lower your crime ratemore.
SPEAKER_00 (24:36):
Is there a way?
I feel like I asked this toevery guest, but I think that
it's such a critical question,which is is there a way for the
media to cover sort of cover theplanes that land to cover the
fact that, hey, robbery's down30%?
We're seeing this big decline inthese crimes.
It's hard to write a storythat's there were no crimes last
week.
It's easy to write a story ofthere were six crimes last week
(24:58):
and they were terrible.
How is this something that at avery local level can be covered
better?
SPEAKER_01 (25:04):
Yeah, you know, I think that's a really great
question.
And I think localities, uh,local press would be the best.
And I I do want to say, I mean,I'm happy to beat up on local
media, but I think another realproblem in the country is that
we just have less local mediathan we used to have.
I mean, there's just fewer localthere's just fewer outlets
(25:25):
covering local news in the sameway.
But I also I do think, you know,we have all these moments where
we kind of nationally look atdata.
There's a monthly unemploymentrate.
There's nothing that stopslocalities from looking at their
sort of monthly year-over-yearhomicide rate or even doing that
(25:45):
quarterly or in their violentcrime rates and really trying to
track for their readers that,you know, violent crime has come
down.
Again, any violent crime is bad.
You know, this is like a thingwhere it's like it's a shocking
event to anybody.
We would like less of it, youknow, we like less cancer.
We'd like, it's like cancer cancome down, you'd like to get to
zero.
So, you know, I think that, butI do think you could have a lot
(26:09):
more just check-ins, like once amonth or once every quarter or
once every six months, justwhere crime is and to write a, I
mean, you know, like I know itdoesn't catch as many eyeballs,
but writing a story about aboutlower crime rates, you know,
would be important.
And I think the thing that youcan remember about this is, you
know, people don't translate itthis way, but when you have
(26:31):
lower crime rates, you know,that means people are alive
today that might not have beenalive, you know, when you had
really high crime rates, right?
I mean, the thing that reducingcrime and reducing murders and
homicides for for sure is thatlike, you know, these are again
kind of transformative events.
Like being shot is a prettypsychologically damaging and
(26:51):
health-damaging idea, even ifyou're like even if you survive
it.
So when you have reduced reducedcrime, like this is a huge
improvement in people's livesand their lived experience.
So it should be a good story.
SPEAKER_00 (27:04):
It should be, yeah.
And you're looking at probably5,000 fewer murder victims per
year than that.
SPEAKER_01 (27:09):
Yeah, but that's what I tried to.
The president, I I talked aboutthis with the private president
Biden.
We did an event with majorchiefs like almost two years
ago, probably two years ago now.
I mean, you know, we had majorchiefs from at the White House,
from you know, from Detroit andMiami, you know, two places that
have just like 50-year lows andhomicides, and we had a bunch of
(27:31):
from all across the country, LosAngeles, Charlotte, big and
small, so Philadelphia.
And, you know, he talked alittle bit about this, but you
know, when you have 5,000 fewerhomicides, I mean, a way to
think about that is like thisfor a variety of reasons, but I
do think policy is important.
(27:52):
You're having hot spot policingand more police, et cetera, as
well as prevention programs,when you do those things, I
mean, you have people walkingaround and like alive that may
have been killed in some, youknow, at some prior point.
So it's a big difference.
It makes a big difference incommunities and it makes a big
difference in how people feelabout like living in cities and
(28:13):
being close to other people.
You know, I mean, these arethese are really profound
effects to lower crime rates.
SPEAKER_00 (28:19):
There's obviously a lot going on in the world right
now.
Not sure if you're aware.
SPEAKER_01 (28:23):
Uh, it's very cracking.
There's a lot going on in theworld today.
SPEAKER_00 (28:30):
Um, is there a way that this issue, not just crime,
but sort of criminal justice andit improving the system and in
ensuring clearance rates is atop priority and reducing crime.
How can all of this stay at theforefront of policymaker
attention given, you know,waving hands all about
everything that's happening?
SPEAKER_01 (28:51):
Yeah, you know, in our research, I think that what
was most interesting is thatprobably the best thing a
locality can do.
Again, I kind of, you know, youyou have a lot of wisdom on
these topics, so I welcome yourview.
But is it just speeding up theentire criminal justice justice
(29:13):
system?
So people are gettingpunishment.
Like, you know, they know whatthey're putting, they're they
feel like if I'm caught, I willlikely be punished quickly.
It doesn't, again, you don'thave to be give people lots of
sentences, but if they areguilty of a crime, they should
be punished quickly.
And it and in our view, givensecond chances when they're out,
et cetera.
(29:34):
You know, but that's aninteresting thing, you know,
because it's not like there'sany single group responsible for
that.
That's often the state,sometimes it's a locality.
It's very opaque, kind ofcontrols the wheels of the
justice system.
And we try to address that by,in our plan, kind of encouraging
funding to beef up that in thoseinstitutions, essentially, and
(29:58):
allow them to move a lot faster.
But that's an area where I thinkit's just like I it's easier for
a politician to a local mayor tosay, I've added police or I've
invested in prevention programs.
And it's a little bit harder forthem to communicate how
investing in their localcriminal justice system, having
(30:20):
more public defenders andprosecutors, but public
defenders too, helps actuallyensure a better system that
keeps all of us safe.
I mean, it takes kind of a fewparagraphs to explain that, not
just a few sentences.
And often one of the challengesin public policy is things that
take longer to explain getadapted a little less, just
(30:40):
because people see less value indoing it.
But here, that's you know, it'sreally important to actually do
the right thing to save people'slives.
You know, so hopefully they'lldo it.
SPEAKER_00 (30:50):
Well, I I see that in my newsletter every week that
the uh the more interesting,detailed, you know, in-depth of
investigations, you get nothing,and then you're like, well,
crime is down, and then that'sthose are the ones that get
shared, and everyone hears that.
So certainly uh I know we justhave a few minutes left.
I wanted to ask real quick, uh,this is something I've I've been
asking every guest.
(31:10):
I'm really curious to hear yourthoughts on this, given your
experience.
How do you think AI is going tochange sort of the approach to
all of this or the policymakerapproach in the near future?
And do you have any sort ofsuggestions on changing
perceptions of AI adoption?
I know this is sort of out inthe left field, but I'm I'm
curious to hear your thoughts onthat.
SPEAKER_01 (31:29):
So so I I feel like I I was very fortunate.
I sat on the president's AIcouncil.
There was an AI council in theWhite House, and sort of had I
was on it, and obviouslyNational Security Council was on
it, and um, various policycouncils uh sat on it.
And you know, what's what'sreally interesting is one of the
(31:50):
big problems in the criminaljustice system, and one of the
real drivers of unfairness inthe criminal justice system is
human bias, right?
I mean, there's been lots andlots and lots of data that
eyewitnesses are less reliable,they will bring in sort of
unconscious bias towards racialgroups that also could infect
(32:14):
policing.
A lot of cases of, you know,police involve shootings are
ones where, you know, you're ina moment and you're just making
hasty decisions, though can thiscan also involve human bias.
I mean, the truth is the jurysystem has a lot of human
biases.
So I I am not actually arguingthat we should replace juries
(32:36):
with AI or um or other, youknow, kind of take out the human
of the process.
But I think if we had AI systemsthat were better at correcting
biases instead of amplifyingthose biases, it's a little hard
because AI AIs are programmed bypeople.
(32:59):
But a system, and you know, likeit's criminal justice, but it
could be like who you're givinga mortgage to.
You know, I mean, we have lotsof data, and essentially black
families are chart chargedhigher interest rates with the
same income and then the samehistory because there are biases
that they experience in thesystem.
And a lot of them can be sort ofunconscious.
(33:21):
People aren't really thinking.
I have this thing in my mindabout what a woman versus a man
or a Latino versus a whiteperson or a black person versus
an Asian.
I mean, there are a lot ofbiases in the system.
So if there are ways to thinkabout, I tried to encourage
this, it was a little hard andvery nascent, but if there are
ways to think about how AI couldfight against those biases and
(33:45):
not entrench them, I actuallythink we'd have a lot more
justice than we do.
And you'd have like some of theareas where you see these
gigantic differentials betweencrack cocaine and cocaine, or
you know, uh, some of theseconversations in the past are, I
think, a function of just biaseskind of running up against each
(34:05):
other and like kind of likebuilding on top of each other in
the criminal justice system.
SPEAKER_00 (34:10):
Yeah, we we definitely see that in the like
the research into the algorithmshows that the algorithm is
unbiased, but taking that a stepfurther is is is biased, excuse
me, not other bias.
Um, but it's less biased thanthat human judge.
Um, I've been new words, andthere's there's research into
cases in Louisiana where if LSUloses in football, judges have
(34:30):
harsher penalties the next dayin court.
And so, like, how do you removeall that?
Well, an algorithm that's notperfect.
So I appreciate that.
SPEAKER_01 (34:38):
Yes, exactly.
I mean, and you know, like withanything, I think, you know, we
never get to nirvana, but likeyou always have to kind of try
to get better and better.
And like I I definitely am opento thinking about ways that AI
can be helpful.
It shouldn't replace humans,particularly in life and death
decisions like this.
That's obviously kind of out ofa sci-fi murder or sci-fi movie,
(35:00):
you know, to have like AIreplacing humans.
Um, but I think I think weshould be genuinely honest that
we over-index for human judgmentbeing unbiased than it is.
And it is a big reason forinequality in a lot of systems
that humans are are bringingtheir bias to decision making.
SPEAKER_00 (35:23):
Absolutely.
Nira, I I really appreciate youcoming on.
This has been a fascinating andfantastic conversation.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_01 (35:29):
And I hope people will check out our cap plan on
American and our AmericanProgress website.
SPEAKER_00 (35:34):
I was just gonna say, where can people find it?
So, CAP, American Progresswebsite, go check it out.
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_01 (35:40):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_00 (35:42):
Thanks for listening to the Jeffalytics Podcast.
Be sure to subscribe and tolearn more, head on over to
ahdatalytics.com for moreinformation and previous
episodes.
If you like what you heard,please leave a glowing review,
which will help others todiscover the show.
Till next time, I'm Jeff Asher.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.