Jeff Sessions May Believe That Longer Sentences Curb Gun Violence But He’s Wrong.

The moment that the 45th President nominated Jeff Sessions to be the People’s Lawyer, everyone on both sides of the gun debate began to shout out. The NRA posted television ads saying that “our nation’s chief law enforcement officer will work tirelessly to defend our rights while protecting us from violent criminals.”  As to the former, Sessions was an outspoken champion of the 2005 PLCAA federal law immunizing gun makers from tort suits; regarding the latter, he is known to be ‘tough on crime,’ in particular violent crimes caused by a gun.

sessions             Sessions is one of a number of public officials who has been fervently impressed by a gun-control initiative in Richmond, VA known as Project Exile, which mandated lengthy federal prison time for anyone convicted of a gun crime in a city whose gun violence rates in the early 1990s ranked it as one of the most violent urban centers in the entire United States. In 1997, when the program first began, Richmond experienced 140 homicides, or an annual rate of 73!  In 1998 homicides dropped by 36%, and continued to dwindle down over the next few years.

The good news is that by 2005, homicides in Richmond dropped to 84, then to 76 in 2006 and to 31 in 2008.  From 1997 until 2010, more than 1,300 people were convicted of gun crimes and received prison sentences which totaled more than 8,000 years, for an average prison stay of more than 6 years per crime.  No wonder Tough Guy Trump has praised Project Exile, but in all fairness the program was strongly supported by a Richmond City Councillor named Tim Kaine.  The program was also supported by folks in the GVP community, including the Brady Campaign, then known as Handgun Control, Inc.

There were also some dissenting voices, most notably from various Gun-nut groups like, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and, of course, Larry Pratt.  And lost in the rhetoric were complaints from federal judges who heard these cases and claimed they were an ‘overreach’ of federal authority, along with the charge that the program was inherently racist and led to over-incarceration of black defendants who always end up as the chief victims of any over-zealous response to crime.

Like most special law-enforcement initiatives that cost extra dough, Project Exile petered out in the mid-2000s after funding was cut by Congressional Republicans in 2003.  But meanwhile, homicides in Richmond remained well below levels recorded before Project Exile went into effect in 1997-98.  That is to say, until this past year.  In 2016, the final murder number may end up at 60, the highest since 2007, and this would bring the annual murder rate back up to 30, which puts the former capital of the Confederacy back in the high end of gun-violence cities big time.

Nobody really knows for sure how come gun killings in Richmond have suddenly spiked last year, just as nobody really knows how come they dropped so significantly twenty years ago.

Back in 2002 several noted public policy and gun researchers, Steve Raphael and Jens Ludwig, published an assessment of Project Exile for Brookings, and decided that the “reduction in Richmond’s gun homicide rates surrounding the implementation of Project Exile was not unusual and that almost all of the observed decrease probably would have occurred even in the absence of the program.”  Why did Raphael and Ludwig come to this conclusion? Because the same drop in violent crime occurred at roughly the same time in many cities which didn’t have any special anti-violence programs running at all.

Trying to figure out why America experienced a 50% decline in violent crime from the mid-90s until the mid-years of the following decade has become an academic cottage industry, without any real consensus as to the cause. Senator Sessions may believe that getting ‘tough’ is an effective to what has now become a new upwards spike in gun violence, but it won’t work until and unless we figure out why sometimes violent crime goes up and other times goes down.  The solution hasn’t yet been found.

4 thoughts on “Jeff Sessions May Believe That Longer Sentences Curb Gun Violence But He’s Wrong.

  1. I have said all along in this space that gun laws have little to no effect on actual gun violence. We can all have fun thinking up after-the-fact reasons but at this point in time it will be hard to generate a lot of credibility for any single explanation. Because, as you say, the same trends seem to apply in diverse places whether laws were changed or not. Personally, I think that laws about guns serve mainly to assert the ideals of a community regarding guns. Canadians are at home with their laws and Texans are at home with ours. And so on. It is all good. When that state is achieved, ordinary people are more likely to identify with law enforcement. Which, in my humble opinion, trumps every other factor in the equation. As far protection from lawsuits — those kind of lawsuits were never going to be won by the plantiffs – for all kind of reasons. But that did not mean that ultra deep pocketed litigants could not have bankrupted the gun makers with the costs of defending them. When the City of NY made such a threat, it was hard to laugh off. Heck, M. Bloomberg could have done it by himself if he wanted to. If we had a robust version of the English system of “loser pays”, the exemption would not have been relevant.

  2. Pingback: Betsy DeVos Is Celebrated at Week-Long Pep Rally Sponsored by Group Whose Board She Chaired | Mister Journalism: "Reading, Sharing, Discussing, Learning"

  3. Pingback: The Supreme Courtroom Simply Shattered A Favourite Professional-Gun Perception. ⋆ Survival Skillz

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.