Dr Currie Myers on the POTUS Farewell Address
Dr C opines on the Farewell Address of President Biden and his final criminal justice remarks.
Tonight, was President Joseph R. Biden’s farewell address to the nation. As an applied criminologist, I purposefully listened and examined the POTUS speech especially when it came time for the President to speak on criminal justice issues. There was not too much dedicated to public safety, but three points were made by the President:
The President thanked police for their dedication and protecting the public
In our American society, law enforcement officers stand as the steadfast guardians, protecting our communities with valor and dedication. Their role transcends mere enforcement; it embodies a commitment to something larger than themselves—the preservation of peace, order, and safety for all. And we thank President Biden for the recognition.
However, during his tenure as President, police agencies across the country have reported to the Police Executive Research Forum that hiring has stalled or decreased, while resignations and retirements have increased. There is no better way to defund police than to not have police officers. The defund the police movement gained momentum in 2020 and as a result many cities, such as Chicago, Atlanta, Memphis and Los Angeles, have lowered their standards for police recruits or increased their recruitment efforts to address the crisis.
The 50 largest cities in the United States had to reduce their 2021 police budgets by 5.2% in aggregate—often as part of broader pandemic cost-cutting initiatives—law enforcement spending as a share of general expenditures rose slightly to 13.7% from 13.6%, according to data compiled by Bloomberg CityLab. And many cities like Minneapolis and Seattle have watered down or put on pause changes that were proposed or even passed at the height of the 2020 demonstrations and riots. Staffing levels should be based on current and projected workload rather than a simple population-based determination. The Department of Justice suggests workload determinations could be based, at least in part, on an examination of 911 calls, including an analysis of peak call times to allow for variation in staffing levels throughout the day and by day of the week as well as the types of calls to understand how much of an officer’s time is likely needed per call. Other factors to consider include the productivity of the officers as well as a department’s scope of responsibilities. Given the possible range of variation in each of these factors, the appropriate number of officers in a given area will vary significantly based on local factors. Because of the complexity of this formula, however, most cities resort to simpler methods and thus may not be staffed at an ideal level—they could need either more or fewer officers. These budget deficits have had existing impact to this day on criminal justice agencies.
Some of the other consequences of this funding and recruiting crisis are that some small towns have dissolved their police departments and turned over law enforcement duties to other agencies. In other jurisdictions departments have offered higher salaries, bonuses, or incentives to attract new hires as they have faced difficulties in retaining veteran officers who have resigned or retired.
The Biden Administration helped force DEI standards into law enforcement and it has had immense implications on leadership and decision making. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have become prominent pillars in many organizations, including first responder agencies. The goal is to create workplaces that are more inclusive, with a broader range of backgrounds, ethnicities, and genders. But while this idea may sound beneficial in theory, the implementation of DEI policies within first responder agencies, particularly law enforcement, often conflicts with the merit-based principles that should guide these crucial professions. The emphasis on DEI risks sacrificing essential standards, such as physical testing, educational qualifications, background investigations, and strong ethical frameworks. Furthermore, resources dedicated to DEI initiatives and training represent a poor use of time and budgets, especially when evidence suggests these programs are ineffective.
Mr. President, law enforcement respect suffered greatly under your Administration.
As President, he oversaw a 50 year low in violent crime.
This is an outright fabrication to the American people. Across the United States, cities are grappling with surging crime rates, delayed police response times, and serious shortages in law enforcement personnel. The grim statistics reveal a nationwide crisis where public safety is at risk, leaving citizens vulnerable and calling into question the efficacy of recent reforms. Major urban centers face not only the consequences of these policies but also the overwhelming demand for resources to effectively counter the rise in crime.
The truth is, crime in America is severely underreported and inadequately understood, especially when considering that the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program—the nation’s primary source for crime data—has been incomplete for years. Since 2020, 25-35% of law enforcement agencies have failed to provide crime data annually. In 2022, The Marshall Project revealed that more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies, representing nearly one-third of the country’s 18,000 police departments, were missing from FBI crime data. This gap means that a quarter of the U.S. population wasn’t represented in federal crime statistics last year. The consequences of this are far-reaching, as we are left with a fragmented and incomplete understanding of public safety.
Despite what the President might suggest, violent crime has been on the rise in recent years. Several factors contribute to this, including a significant reduction in law enforcement presence. Since 2020, the number of police officers on the streets has declined dramatically due to a 44% increase in retirements nationwide. This exodus of officers has left many police departments understaffed and unable to adequately enforce the law, particularly when it comes to preventing violent crime.
Moreover, the U.S. is home to an estimated 14 million illegal aliens, and crimes committed by this population are often either underreported or unreported altogether. Local law enforcement agencies, already stretched thin, are now faced with the additional responsibility of handling immigration-related crimes. This diversion of resources has left communities more vulnerable to other criminal activities, further exacerbating the crime problem.
Compounding these issues, Proposition 47 in California has reclassified many drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. In 2023, violent crime in California increased by 23%, while arrests for violent crime decreased by 9%, property crime arrests dropped by 38%, and drug crime arrests plummeted by 86%. These statistics illustrate the widening gap between the reality of crime and law enforcement's ability to respond.
The underreporting of crime is one of the most significant obstacles to understanding the true scope of criminal activity in the U.S. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reveals that only 47% of violent crimes and 35% of property crimes are reported to the police. Even more concerning, 63% of sexual assaults go unreported according to RAINN, and 70% of domestic violence incidents are not reported, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The FBI estimates that 50% of burglaries also go unreported. These figures show that reported crime statistics only capture a fraction of the criminal activity occurring in communities.
Clearance rates, which indicate the percentage of crimes solved by law enforcement, further demonstrate the challenges. Nationally, the clearance rate for murder is just 52.3%, while it’s a dismal 26.1% for rape, 23.2% for robbery, and 41.4% for aggravated assault. For property crimes, the rates are even lower: 13% for burglaries, 12.4% for larceny-theft, and 9.3% for motor vehicle theft. These low clearance rates are compounded by the fact that, in many cases, victims no longer report crimes at all. This phenomenon, known as “crime reporting apathy,” is driven by the belief that law enforcement either won’t respond or can’t do much to address minor offenses. As crime becomes normalized, fewer people see the point in reporting incidents to the authorities.
The “Ferguson Effect” refers to a growing reluctance among police officers to engage in proactive policing due to concerns about public scrutiny and the rise of anti-police sentiments. This has led to an increase in crime, as law enforcement disengagement creates a vacuum that emboldens offenders. This issue has had a major impact on policing since Biden took office.
The impact of lenient policies like zero bail in has also contributed to the rise in crime. A recent study found that individuals released on zero bail in California were rearrested for 169% more crimes than those released on traditional bail. Over an 18-month period, the recidivism rate for zero-bail offenders was a staggering 78%, compared to 33-44% for those who posted bail. This data reveals that the rush to reduce incarceration rates through measures like zero bail is fueling recidivism and undermining public safety.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has faced a relentless series of failures, as identified by multiple Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits. These audits have uncovered significant shortcomings in the agency’s ability to vet, screen, and release foreign nationals—failures that many Republicans argue have compromised national security. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, facing intense scrutiny, was impeached by House Republicans in February for dereliction of duty, with many of these failures cited as evidence.
Mr. President, crime is out of control, and it is evident to everyone except you!
As President, he helped pass the most significant gun legislation in 30 years.
If we examine actual gun registration laws implemented there is no data to support gun laws work. This includes the most recent Federal gun law, which is the 2022-gun control bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that President Biden signed into law. In what was touted as the most significant US gun control bill in nearly 30 years, the law includes tougher background checks for buyers younger than 21, $15 billion (about $46 per person in the US) in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades, funding to encourage states to implement "red flag" laws to remove firearms from people considered a threat, and closing the so-called "boyfriend loophole" by banning all those convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun, not just those who are married to their victims or live with them.
If gun control is so important in reducing gun violence, then why has crime continued to be out of control and headed in the same direction as the violent crime wave of the early 1990’s? It is because our current criminal justice public policy does not work. But there is a gun control strategy that can work, and it is called “Focus Deterrence.”
Plato once said, “no wise man punishes any one because he has sinned, but that he may sin no more, for what is past cannot be recalled, but what is too come may be checked.” This is the essential foundation behind Focus Deterrence.
The Focus Deterrence strategy must focus preventative and enforcement efforts on top offenders who have been identified as being responsible for most shootings and homicides or firearm-related violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault. The strategy must focus preventative and enforcement efforts on the geographic locations (hot spots) where crime data and analysis demonstrate that most shootings and homicides or firearm-related violent crimes occur. But to implement this strategy it takes funding, labor, and resources!
What we can determine is that when implemented gun regulations do not work. In his seminal work, Dr. John Lott’s booked, More Guns, Less Crime (first published in 1998, revised in 2010). An economist by trade, Lott sought to study the effects of gun policy on crime rates. At the time Lott delved into his research, right-to-carry laws were starting to become the norm across the country. This new trend spurred Lott to analyze the impact of concealed-carry laws had on crime rates and the result was what the American Institue of Economic Research said was “nothing short of astonishing.” The research findings demonstrated how states with “shall-issue” concealed-carry laws did not see increases in crime rates. In fact, his findings even showed that these very policies played a pivotal role in reducing crime. Lott drew on another economic concept, externalities, to demonstrate the positive effects of gun ownership:
“Deterrence matters not only to those who actively take defensive actions. People who defend themselves may indirectly benefit other citizens.… cab drivers and drug dealers who carry guns produce a benefit for cab drivers and drug dealers without guns.… [Similarly,] homeowners who defend themselves make burglars generally wary of breaking into homes. These spillover effects are frequently referred to as “third-party effects” or “external benefits.”
Externalities occur when a good's production or consumption affects a third party not directly connected to its production or consumption. Lott connects this concept to gun ownership, where the presence of a few concealed-carry holders creates a spillover effect that makes the rest of the unarmed population safer.
Mr. President, guns do not kill people, bad guys with guns do!
Conclusion
This election wasn't just a victory for Trump; it was a referendum on law enforcement and public safety. The data is hard to ignore as crime has surged in many parts of the country, Americans are increasingly skeptical of “reforms” that seem to put criminal justice before public justice. Trump voters, in particular, have had enough. They seek a government that prioritizes their safety and cracks down on both crime and the factors fueling it, including ineffective policies at the local and state levels.
In the past, many states and cities adopted “criminal justice reform” measures. However, the reality on the ground has been starkly different. As crime spiked in neighborhoods that once felt safe, Americans began to question whether the reforms were worth the cost. In response, Trump’s campaign and his allies in the GOP leaned into a strong law-and-order message, pledging to undo the damage and return a sense of security to American streets.
The overwhelming support (over 70% of the voters) for Proposition 36 in California underscores this shift in public sentiment. Californians, once at the forefront of progressive criminal justice reform, are now leading the charge for common-sense adjustments to policies that aren’t working. The voters there even threw out by wide margins all the “Soros-funded” leftist prosecutors that were once running counties like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Trump’s victory signals a powerful movement: a call for reforms that don’t sacrifice the safety and stability of American communities.
With control of the Senate and House, Trump and his Cabinet leaders are well-positioned to push forward their legislative priorities. Immigration and crime will be top of mind, and the GOP-led Senate will likely support bills that align with Trump’s vision. For instance, tougher sentencing laws, policies to curb illegal immigration, and initiatives to support and make better and more effective law enforcement agencies are all on the table.
This unified agenda will also enable Trump to work more effectively with local law enforcement across the country. America’s police departments have been stretched thin, with morale often impacted by what they see as anti-police rhetoric and policies.
Best wishes in your retirement Mr. President. January 20th cannot come soon enough for America. You will no doubt, go down in history as the worst president ever to serve our beloved Nation.