Articles

When voters passed State Questions 780 and 781, they spoke loudly and clearly to legislators, district attorneys, and other policymakers.

In an age of increasing political polarization, consensus is hard to come by. But sometimes when a problem is so glaring and so damaging on multiple fronts, all of us see the same thing no matter what ideological lens we are peering through. In Oklahoma, criminal justice is one of those issues.

This was a great year in Oklahoma for criminal justice reforms. Not since the passage of Justice Reinvestment legislation in 2012 have we seen such significant measures make it through the legislative process.

Governor Mary Fallin signed HB 3052 at a public ceremony in 2012 with a great deal of fanfare. The bill created the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, or JRI. The event was supposed to signal the end of one era—a “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” philosophy on criminal justice—and the beginning of a smarter approach that emphasized rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders, especially those with mental health or addiction issues.

Conservatives, as the readers of this magazine well know, emphasize the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility over those of collective well-being and communal responsibility. Where there is a problem or a societal ill, we do not reflexively look first to government agencies for a solution.

Writing in the Enid News & Eagle, OCPA's Trent England explains why four measures passed this legislative session are important steps in reforming Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.

As state policymakers work to reduce prison incarceration rates and their resulting costs, there is a second way to address this issue from the bottom up. Offenders whose crimes do not merit prison time are still clogging county jails across Oklahoma, driving costs at the local level. While legislators and the governor grapple with ways to trim prison populations, we already have a ready-made program in place to begin a similar local effort in our 77 counties.

I recently sat with my son to watch a television program he had accessed through Netflix about the sport of boxing. A significant portion of the program was devoted to the sociology of the sport. It was pointed out that as you look at the best fighters over the decades, their backgrounds tell a story of which ethnicities were struggling in America at the time. Although it was not at all a focus of the program, an interesting and tragic insight into the impact of professional licensing struck me as I watched.

The state and federal constitutions protect a person’s right to his or her property. On the other hand, a person has no right to the proceeds of illegal activities. Unfortunately, a legal innovation known as “civil asset forfeiture” can let the exception trump the constitutional rule.