Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Introduction: The Most Comprehensive Anti-Crime Bill in U.S. History

Most Americans regard the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 as the most comprehensive and far-reaching anti-crime bill in the country's history. The Act, which ran to more than 1,000 pages and cost approximately $30 billion, covered an overwhelming array of areas ranging from funding for late-night youth basketball programs to a ban on assault weapons. The bill received credit for the drastic drop in crime levels in the last quarter of the 1990s, but was still viewed by critics as an unmatched boondoggle. Two decades later, the nation continues to feel the effects of the Violent Crime Control Act.

As already noted, the bill had substantial coverage and incorporated a variety of law-enforcement, crime-prevention, and prison-upgrade elements (The Legal Dictionary, 2014). This paper focuses particularly on the policy of grassroots community policing and the "100,000 Cops" initiative, to which the bill allotted $8.8 billion in funds (Marion & Oliver, 2012; The Legal Dictionary, 2014). Using that initiative as a case study, the paper demonstrates the relevance of the public policy process — which involves problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation — to the criminal justice system (Marion & Oliver, 2012, p. 432).

Problem Identification: Rising Crime and the Case for Community Policing

Clinton, in the words of Marion and Oliver (2012), promised to deploy "an additional 100,000 police officers to America's streets" in an initiative that sought to convince the American voter that, just like the Republicans, the Democrats could also be tough on crime. Through the "100,000 Cops" initiative, Clinton was able not only to shift the crime debate, but also to provide "the media and the public a clear message that cut through the complexities of federal crime policy" (Marion & Oliver, 2012, p. 436).

The rate of violent crime in the United States was so high in the early 1990s that the public had begun viewing crime as the most serious civic concern (Marion & Oliver, 2012). This was despite the passage of influential omnibus anti-crime bills by Congress between 1984 and 1990 (The Legal Dictionary, 2014). Liberals and conservatives differed "on the best way to address the problem of criminal violence" (The Legal Dictionary, 2014, para. 2). Whereas liberals favored channeling more funds toward crime-preventing social programs and achieving fairness in the justice system, conservatives put greater emphasis on punishment and wanted to see more funds directed toward prison construction, the implementation of Three Strikes laws, and the withdrawal of habeas corpus rights from inmates on death row (The Legal Dictionary, 2014).

It was evident that technology-based approaches, rapid response, and random patrols were doing little to prevent crime, giving rise to the question of what would effectively prevent it (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The broken windows theory developed by James Wilson and George Kelling brought forth the concept of community policing. "Broken windows" in this context refers to the unfixed cues that signal neglect on the part of law enforcers to would-be criminals (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The theory posits that an environment characterized by broken windows attracts minor crimes and allows them to escalate into more serious offenses. The solution, therefore, lies in addressing minor crimes early — something that can only be achieved if police work hand in hand with the community to determine "who belongs to a neighborhood and who does not" (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

Policing practices began to shift from the traditional dismissal of citizen input to its active appreciation through the formation of community-police partnerships, in pursuit of solutions to mutually identified concerns (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The types of grassroots policing employed included strategic, neighborhood, weed-and-seed, and problem-oriented approaches (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

Agenda Setting: Clinton's Campaign and Congressional Pressure

With his presidential campaign prior to the 1992 general election, Bill Clinton set the agenda for the fight against crime (The Legal Dictionary, 2014). He incorporated elements from both sides of the political divide to produce a strong stance on criminal activity (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Clinton's campaign favored community policing — a liberal component — while still stressing the need to get tough on criminal offenders by employing 100,000 additional police officers, a more conservative position (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

However, once Clinton took office, he shifted focus away from crime and began addressing other civic concerns (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The first 100 days of his presidency were largely quiet; Congress neither drafted nor was pressured into formulating any anti-crime policies during this period (Carter, 2006). Clinton raised the issue only when it became apparent that Congress was moving toward a crime bill, and only then did he deliver a speech reinforcing his campaign platform (Carter, 2006).

In this sense, Clinton set the agenda twice: first, during his campaign, when he raised public awareness regarding crime, and second, while in office, when he refocused attention on crime, encouraging more media coverage of the issue and increasing public awareness of crime policy (Carter, 2006). Congress also played a crucial role in agenda setting by pressuring Clinton to actualize the community policing and 100,000 Cops initiatives he had promised voters during his campaign (Carter, 2006).

Conclusion

Youth correctional efforts in the state have been significantly boosted by partnerships between community police officers and parole or probation officers, or high school guidance counselors (DOJ, 1999). The "United Families of West Boulevard" in Pittsburgh and the "City Safe Community Taskforce" in Irvine, both formed to provide guidance to high school students and prevent youth delinquency, serve as strong examples (Fields, 2006).

Generally, significant declines in crime rates have been witnessed, with violent crime decreasing by 20% in the six years immediately following enactment of the Violent Crime Control Act. There remains room to achieve greater gains in ongoing anti-crime efforts. Communities still need financial assistance to protect their future generations from violence, illegal gun and drug trafficking, and the grip of criminal gangs. Judging from the improving law-enforcement agencies and the organized community prosecution efforts in the State of California, it is reasonable to conclude that "the goal of a safer America is within reach" (DOJ, 1999).