While Saying They Won’t Remove the Consequences to Crime
Disclosure: The author, Karen Morgan, is a member of the Lakewood Advisory Commission. All views and research are her own and do not represent Lakewood nor the Commission.
Have you wondered why people are allowed to come wash your windshield and solicit money in the middle of the street? Have you heard there is a law against that?
Yes, there is a law against that. Lakewood does not enforce it.
Have you seen evidence of lax enforcement, like the comments below from nextdoor.com?
All of the situations quoted above have complicating factors and reasons for the law not being enforced. Some of the most popular reasons are:
- These people are just trying to survive; “crimes of survival”
- These are low-level crimes that don’t really matter; they are all misdemeanors
- Police don’t have time or staff
For these reasons, there are a number of crimes that Lakewood routinely forgives through various programs.
- The LEAD program diverts offenders (which means does not penalize)
- The Outreach Court diverts offenders (which means does not penalize)
- Police de-prioritize low-level crime enforcement
Following this thought process, a person might think:
What’s the point of having a law that is not enforced?
A recent proposal from the Lakewood Advisory Commission aimed to research unenforced or partially enforced laws to see if it would make sense to remove them.
City Council came out strongly against the proposal. Listening to some Council comments, a person may think Lakewood supported enforcing and penalizing all crimes.
Mayor Strom: “I can’t imagine telling a voter that we said we’re going to get rid of the consequences to crime. “
But that is NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
In fact, nine Councilors, the Mayor and the City Manager defended the current practice of removing the consequences to crime for all the reasons listed above.
This was a “have your cake and eat it too” moment for the city.
Picking up on the quote above…
Mayor Strom continued with praise for the “innovative” new city programs that are “very much on the side of addressing the homelessness challenge.” The programs she referred to do, in fact, remove the consequences to crime, by diverting offenders into receiving resources instead of penalties.
Lakewood Programs that Remove Penalties to Crime
Outreach Court is a special court that will connect a person to resources, rather than impose penalties. Council spent a majority of their speaking time defending this growing program.
For more on Outreach Court, click here for Lakewood FAQ, click here for forgiving of crimes, click here for original news story.
For example, Councilor Sinks says this program works to bring people to [Outreach] Court so they can be forgiven and then get an ID while there. Councilor Stewart defended the Court with the idea that moving the court to a less intimidating place helps people “mitigate” their failure to appear. Councilor Low also believes that low-level offenses are “how we get people in front of Outreach Court”.
Note: Failure to Appear is cleared (i.e. forgiven) 99.999% of the time
City Manager Kathy Hodgson provided a litany of resources that are provided at Lakewood Outreach Court, including everything from blankets to food to housing assistance. The number of people served at the Outreach Court increases every month, which the city counts as a success. The measure of success does not include recidivism rates nor overall crime rates.
Providing people help and resources rather than proceeding with criminal charges is what’s known as “diversion”. The pros and cons of diversion is a whole topic unto itself. Some people love it, such as the ACLU who is known to sue governments who do not make diversion known to those who qualify. Others are still looking for evidence of any benefit.
Getting an ID is not a consequence to crime. Forgiving (i.e. clearing or mitigating) is not a consequence to crime.
The city’s fierce defense of Outreach Court shows the city is very much in favor of removing the consequences to crime, at least for some crimes, for some people. Non-enforcement also happens routinely, with full Council support.
For example, Council Member LaBure said “I think we’re not gonna be able to police our way out of a lot of the problems and the challenges that we’re facing, so we gotta find new strategies to help our police department to make sure that, they’re not spending their time on sort of low-level crimes and that are really focusing on the real, important challenges.”
Council Member Shahrezaei supported “the creative ways that we’re serving some of our most vulnerable in the community” and said these programs have a “positive impact on us.” She feared people who might want “want to eliminate programs that don’t impact everyone.”
Another “creative way” of serving the community is through the LEAD program. This program diverts crimes associated with homelessness by “providing resources to those committing low-level crimes.” Low-level crimes named by the police include trespassing, drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. Explanations for non-enforcement include lack of time, lack of resources, and the low-level nature of the crime.
The rest of Council supported the track Lakewood is on, that is lessening enforcement, for a variety of reasons.
Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said “our police force is doing an incredible job balancing really difficult changing circumstances within our city and our working very hard to recommend and figure out their staffing challenges to figure out how to again address some of these crimes.”
Read more here about current police philosophy of treating the individual, not the crime, in Lakewood news.
Taking Lakewood at it’s word, non-enforcement and consequence-removal programs are already in place. That it not the question. The question is if it might make sense to research alternative programs that do the same thing. One alternative is law removal.
For example:
- Lakewood has already removed some panhandling ordinances, so Lakewood retaining the provision allowing window washing at intersections is somewhat outmoded, allowing for easy removal.
- Cities like Washington D.C. are decriminalizing possession of drug paraphernalia for personal use. This might make sense in Lakewood where paraphernalia is handed out by the County government.
- California changed shoplifting from a felony to a misdemeanor. Although Lakewood only handles misdemeanors, the same downgrading principle applies.
- In New Jersey, shoplifting at its lowest levels has been removed and changed to disorderly conduct with mandatory community service and optional jail time.
These kinds of policies seem the natural progression of the track Lakewood is on. It is similar to suggestions from the city to “lessen deportation fears”.
Are Current Practices Working
Councilor Olver was the only one to suggest that current practices are not working. Speaking to the manager of the Walmart on Wadsworth, he has confirmed that the self-checkout lanes in both stores have been closed due to rampant shoplifting. He suggested that research go forward, not to remove laws but to find out what other cities are doing to reduce crime.
Olver asked if research could continue on best practices. Staff responded with examples of how the Council has put limits on projects before or guided projects into certain areas. So yes, research into some safety practices, and Olver’s proposal specifically, could have continued but Council chose not to.
Council turned down an opportunity to research crime enforcement by answering with examples of social work the city is doing.
The dialogue between Olver asking about escalating crime and the rest of Council answering with examples of social work highlights a huge communication disconnect. This would seem to be an area ripe for increased public dialogue.
Public Perception
75% of public comment were opposed to any research that could lead to decreasing enforcement. One comment said: “We further oppose any current practice which waives these laws such that violations are dismissed. We see how much once great cities have deteriorated once they adopt policies that eliminate these violations as crimes. Crime escalates, as does drug addiction. You don’t have to look far. Denver is one.”
The remaining public comments did not ask for increased enforcement, just maintaing current levels, sometimes with the same justification of using the court system for social services. One comment said: “The court has the right to fine or jail someone who gets a ticket. This may not happen often but this could happen. The Outreach Court is doing a service to those who show up. They get assistance in dealing with IDs, housing, food, etc.”
In the end, no action was taken on any research-related activity. However, we did get a good sense that City Council and city staff are focused on programs that provide resources to individuals, rather than consequences to crime. Combined with a de-prioritization strategy for low-level crimes, Lakewood seems to be decreasing enforcement activities or using laws as entry to social work.
Council defending programs that do not enforce or penalize crimes, while refusing research into the same could be seen as disingenuous. This could also be seen as a cry for help. Council is clearly concerned with the plight of individuals committing these low-level offenses. Council also clearly does not want any research into public safety options, this proposal being the third one to be turned down in the last year.
Can programs for enforcement and social work be integrated more effectively? Or does it make sense to increase enforcement and add completely separate social programs to provide resources? Is there a way to reduce confusion over having laws that are not enforced while at the same time reducing the fear of involving the law for social work? Will the public be a stakeholder in these discussions moving forward?
