The perception of crime in our nation shows an enormous divide. One recent poll reports 90% of Republicans say crime is up while 60 percent of Democrats say crime is down.
The result has been a wave of ‘tough on crime’ laws from states across the political spectrum that expand the definition of violent crimes and their penalties. The 2024 Safer Kentucky Act is one of those omnibus crime bills that some say casts too wide a net.
In this episode of Us & Them, host Trey Kay looks at the history of America’s crime laws to check on provisions that are back, like the so-called Three Strikes law that’s part of Kentucky’s crime bill. In the 1990s, similar measures addressed violent drug crimes, however over time the costs of incarcerating more and more people became too big a burden.
This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the Just Trust and the CRC Foundation.
Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.
Rep. Jared Bauman
Rep. Jason Nemes
Photos courtesy of the Kentucky General Assembly
Reps. Jared Bauman and Jason Nemes, Republicans from Jefferson County, Ky., sponsored the Safer Kentucky Act, a sweeping crime bill that includes a “three strikes” provision. Similar laws gained popularity in the 1990s but have since been widely criticized as costly and ineffective. Both lawmakers declined interview requests for this story.
Read Kentucky House Bill-5 better known as The Safer Kentucky Act.
Pam Thomas, senior fellow at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, focuses on state budget and tax policy, the social safety net, and the criminal legal system — areas she says are deeply interconnected through public funding.
Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting
“The last time Kentucky did major criminal legal system reform was in 2011… They tried to reduce the number of people incarcerated, bring down prison populations, and increase probation and parole. But since then, they’ve passed six or seven times more bills that increase incarceration, lengthen sentences, and impose harsher penalties than ones that reduce them.
A lot of times, people think of violent crime and have a specific image in mind. The federal definition only includes five crimes. But in Kentucky, we have many more definitions in our statutes. What the Safer Kentucky Act did was essentially say that almost everyone charged as a violent offender has to serve 85% of their sentence… Before, someone might be eligible for parole after serving 20%. Now they’re going to serve 85%, which means a lot more days in prison. Year after year, the number of people in the system is going to grow — and there’s nothing you can do about it because they have to serve 85%.
Without more revenue, no — Kentucky can’t afford that if it still wants to fund education, pave roads, maintain a healthcare system, support the judicial system… But it depends on your priorities. You can afford what you decide to afford, but it means you don’t do other things.”
— Pam Thomas, Senior Fellow at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy
Read Kentucky Center For Economic Policy’s report projecting the cost of The Safer Kentucky Act.
Judah Schept, a professor in the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University.
Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting
“[Kentucky’s] House Bill 5, the so-called Safer Kentucky Act, is what we call an omnibus crime bill — reminiscent of those passed by state legislatures and the federal government, like the 1994 crime bill signed by President Clinton. We actually have the data. We know this is a disastrous public policy approach to all kinds of issues. After four-plus decades of investing so much into the infrastructure of jails and prisons, they’ve become the catch-all solution to every social problem. If there’s a problem with addiction in your community, you invest in the jail. If there’s a revenue decline — like in Eastern Kentucky after the fall of the coal industry — you ‘solve’ it by expanding jail capacity and renting beds to the state or ICE, who pay a per diem that helps fund your county budget.”
— Judah Schept, professor at Eastern Kentucky University.
Sylvia Goodman, a reporter with Kentucky Public Radio, covers the state Capitol and government affairs.
Photo courtesy of J. Tyler Franklin
“One of the main things about the Safer Kentucky Act is that the sponsors emphasized repeatedly in hearings that this was a data-driven bill… they talked a lot about the extensive research. And Democrats who were opposed to the bill and reporters like myself had asked repeatedly for some of their sourcing… until on the House floor, a Democrat asked for [a list of their supporting research]. And lo and behold, they actually pulled out a source list and started reading from it… it was very hyper-academic. It sounded like he was reading citations, like from a bibliography. And so afterwards I asked the lead sponsor of the bill, Jared Bauman, for that list, and he provided it to me… it was more than 100 sources of academic research. And I started looking into it.
At first, I thought, man, they really did do their research… but it became apparent very quickly that many of the studies on that list did not have anything to do with this bill… it’s literally a copy and paste—you can tell the formatting is the same and everything is almost exactly the same. It’s a Georgia policy paper that actually called for very different recommendations than what is in this report… they took maybe one of a dozen or so recommendations that this Georgia policy paper recommended… and then they said that all their sources supported the bill. So, you know, it’s a little dubious, frankly.”
— Sylvia Goodman, a reporter with Kentucky Public Radio
Read a report from Sylvia Goodman: The Safer Kentucky Act source list is ‘cut and paste’ from a Georgia policy paper
Josh Crawford, director of criminal justice initiatives at the Georgia Center for Opportunity, authored a report on crime rates in Atlanta that was cited by supporters of HB5, also known as the Safer Kentucky Act.
Photo courtesy of Georgia Center for Opportunity
“I had written a report on violent crime reduction for Atlanta… that report had been given by another legislator to Representative Bauman. He reached out… we had a number of conversations about that report and some of the provisions in House Bill 5 and how they either did align or did not align with some of that work… I provided feedback on some of the relevant provisions… dealing with gangs and violent offenses and stuff like that. The report for Atlanta… included sentencing provisions that are recommendations for the state of Georgia as well… things that impact city-level policy are city-level recommendations, things that impact state-level policy are state-level recommendations. My understanding from the legislators who crafted House Bill 5 was they basically took the principles and some of the technical literature on sentencing that are contained in that report and then used that to inform how they crafted changes in Kentucky.”
— Josh Crawford, director of criminal justice initiatives at the Georgia Center for Opportunity
Read Josh Crawford’s study about crime in Atlanta: Reducing Crime In Atlanta
Former Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Christian County, served as the longtime chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was a former prosecutor. He was one of two Republicans who voted against the Safer Kentucky Act before retiring at the end of the 2024 legislative session.
Photo courtesy of Craig Hodge
“The legislators behind the bill talked about exploding crime—even in Jefferson County. It’s just not true... But there was a painted picture of crime on the rise. Most legislators, regardless of the subject, rely on a handful of colleagues they trust as experts. I think that’s what drove the bill.
It’s politically very popular to do tough-on-crime things, to put bad guys in jail and keep them there. Who doesn’t support that—left or right?
The problem is, in the criminal justice space, nuance matters... the costs and the bottom lines matter... and the outcomes for public safety matter a whole bunch. When you move forward with policy without taking those into consideration, you’re blowing it and creating more harm than you intend.
But when you have to explain the nuance, you lose. The ‘tough on crime, clean up our streets’ side wins by default.”
— Former Sen. Whitney Westerfield
