One in a series of editorials on presidential campaign issues.
Crime is down. And many people are standing in the glow of that accomplishment, including presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Bush's campaign Web site declares that Texans are safer: ''Under the leadership of Governor Bush, violent crime in Texas dropped 20 percent, and overall crime decreased by 13 percent.'' There were also substantial drops in juvenile crime.
Gore's campaign Web site says: ''The number of violent crimes has decreased every single year since Al Gore and the administration took office.''
It almost sounds as if these two have personally been driving around in the Batmobile at night cleansing the streets of diabolical felons. Needless to say, they haven't been. Indeed, some of the more cutting-edge news on crime comes not from national politicians but from bureaucrats, policy wonks, and academics.
It is Drug Enforcement Administration officials who have warned the country about heroin and the fact that methamphetamine plagues Des Moines, San Diego, Phoenix, and Boise. DEA officials also note that crime is down - but not everywhere. Small cities are now having the same drug-related crime problems that big cities had a decade ago. From 1997 to 1998, crime rates went up in some cities, including a 42 percent increase in Spokane, a 54 percent increase in Omaha, and an 86 percent increase in Plano, Texas.
It's a 1997 report from the University of Maryland submitted to the Justice Department that says the country is starved for research money. Billions of dollars are spent on crime prevention, but there are only flimsy answers to the question of what actually works, because too little money is spent on rigorous evaluations of programs.
The lessons for both candidates: Treat old and especially new programs, policies, and legislation as experiments that must be evaluated and commit federal dollars to finding out what works and why.
Despite their rhetoric, Bush and Gore share some common ground. Sadly, both are wrong on key issues.
Both men favor a constitutional amendment to protect victims' rights. The Constitution is this country's legal DNA. It should only be changed in rare cases to achieve a great historic good. Victims often do need more consideration. But this job is best done by local authorities who can set up better local practices.
Gore and Bush are also both misguided in their support of the death penalty. It's no longer a secret that innocent people are on death row or that minority criminals are more likely to face death than whites.
Geography is also a capricious factor. According to the most recent Justice Department figures, in 1998 there were 68 executions in the United States - 20 of them in Bush's home state of Texas, 13 in Virginia, and seven in South Carolina. Fifteen other states had four or fewer executions. The law must not prevail through a cruelly rigged system of Russian roulette.
Nor is capital punishment a deterrent - a recent analysis of FBI statistics by The New York Times found that most states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states without.
Both candidates soundly realize that it takes the joint effort of families, schools, law enforcement, communities, charities, and faith-based organizations to fight crime. Bush calls this ''mobilizing the armies of compassion.''
Still, of the two candidates, Bush stands out as the tough guy. As governor of Texas, his equation is that stronger penalties plus longer prison stays equals lower crime rates. Bush also touts Texas' crackdown on juvenile crime, which includes longer and tougher sentences, trying defendants as young as 14 years old as adults, and making juvenile records more freely available to law enforcement.
Lately, Gore sounds tougher on crude movies than on crime. But what the vice president lacks in toughness, he makes up for in thoroughness. This difference makes him the better crime-fighting president.
Both candidates, for example, have been good soldiers in fighting domestic violence. However in Pennsylvania last week, when a worker at women's crisis center told Bush that the Violence Against Women Act - which dispenses federal grants to fight domestic violence and rape - was being held up in Congress by Republicans, he seemed surprised.
''Is it up for reauthorization now?'' Bush said, according to the Associated Press. And he asked the woman to send him more information on the bill.
Some aide ought to be roasted for failing to educate Bush. The act is indeed up for reauthorization. Advocates have spent months saying that time is running out - Congress would like to adjourn in early October. And Gore has already announced that he supports reauthorization.
Gore is also more thorough on gun control. Both candidates are for child safety locks on new handguns. Gore would make them mandatory. Bush thinks lock use should be voluntary, though he says he would sign legislation making them mandatory if it gets through Congress. While Bush is strong on punishment, Gore mixes punishment and common-sense prevention such as photo-licensing, limiting people to buying one handgun a month, and extending the Brady law so that those convicted of serious violent crimes in juvenile court can never legally own a gun again.
Bush offers voters an appealing mix of compassion and crackdowns. But it's Gore who can add the seemingly boring attention to countless details that can promote safety and even save lives.
