The Next Chapter for Criminal Justice Policy

I took over leading the criminal justice and civil liberties policy department at R Street about a year ago after working as a resident senior fellow on the team for the nearly four years. A great deal has changed in the field since I started in 2021, though many of those changes had been building for years. Today, debates over crime, safety, and justice often make the country feel divided. But I do not believe the divide is as wide as it appears. Most people want the same basic things: to be safe, to feel safe, and to trust that the system is fair.

To understand why today’s crime and policy stances feel so fractured, it helps to look at the major criminal justice movements that brought us here.

First came the tough-on-crime era, which established public safety as a main government interest and made clear that those who did not adhere to the social contract would face consequences. Decades later came a push for “smart-on-crime,” a more measured, evidence-based approach that responded to the mass incarceration created by the previous era and the rising costs that followed. That gave way to abolitionist movements with slogans like “defund the police,” which forced a society-wide reckoning with racial disparities and economic inequities in the system.

Each movement revealed something important. One reminded us why the system exists, while another exposed the real costs of the system, and the third required that we challenge complacency. But at times, well-intentioned desires to correct past injustices pushed proposed solutions toward extremes, removed from the daily realities of law enforcement patrols, courtrooms, supervision, and correctional facilities. Some members of the public began to believe that what was broadly labeled “reform” ignored their safety concerns, and political backlash followed. Concerns about safety and fairness were both valid, but the debate grew more intense, especially as viral online content, often designed to provoke outrage, hardened the perceived divide.

This is the moment we find ourselves in. Extreme proposals do not offer a sustainable path forward. People should not have to pick between fairness and safety; sound policy requires both. Yet the public continues to suffer while advocates and policymakers remain locked in a debate between competing absolutes.

Americans want a society that both feels safe and is safe. A person should be able to walk home after dinner, ride the subway to work, or take a child to the park without fear of harm. Businesses should be able to devote their energy to serving customers, hiring workers, increasing sales, and strengthening the vibrancy of their neighborhoods rather than guard against theft and public disorder. Government must respond to safety and disorder effectively, through locally-led solutions whenever possible and with taxpayer dollars spent wisely.

We also must restore public trust in the criminal justice system. Institutions should act with competency, integrity, prudence, and restraint. Law enforcement must see themselves working with and accountable to the community—not above it—while solving crimes responsibly and keeping people safe. Prosecutors must act as neutral guardians of justice, removing politics from case decisions and ensuring the rule of law guides their use of power. Courts must move with speed and seriousness while balancing public safety with constitutional protections. Carceral settings should be used only when necessary, focused on restoring an individual’s social responsibility and reducing future harm rather than compounding it. The system also must use emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) responsibly, adequately address behavioral health issues, and better serve young people so that their first contact with the justice system is also their last.

This vision is possible with a serious commitment to classically liberal values, limited and effective government, and by elevating common sense over partisanship. The justice system should be smaller where it infringes on fundamental liberties, stronger when public safety is at risk, fairer if there are clear disparate applications, and supported by data to ensure better outcomes. Voters are exhausted by rhetoric that demands they pick one side or the other and are ready for leadership that embodies a fair, firm, and focused framework. This is the American criminal justice system that the R Street Institute envisions.

• Fair because a system that abuses power or ignores individual rights is un-American and loses legitimacy.
• Firm because accountability, order, and public safety are core government functions.
• Focused because government power should be restrained, taxpayer dollars spent with intention, and justice policy effectively targeted for the strongest outcomes.

R Street will continue to be a pragmatic voice in a field that is often hesitant to consider tradeoffs. We will protect our credibility with the right and the left, continuing to work with both sides to advance good public policy. We will pair rigorous research with practical experience and continued engagement with those working inside the system. And we will always maintain our intellectual independence. This model has already produced results.

Our work often starts with the questions policymakers are already trying to answer: How can states deter crime while maintaining fiscally responsible police budgets? How can we support victims and rehabilitate defendants at the same time? How can courts respond to mental illness and substance abuse effectively and compassionately while still protecting public safety, accountability, and due process?

We socialize ideas early with practitioners, policymakers, and partners whose feedback helps us see what is missing, where the trade-offs are, and whether a policy can work in practice. That input strengthens the research, which in turn gives us the evidence and credibility needed to educate decision-makers. By the time we engage policymakers, we are bringing them more than an idea—we are delivering a strategy ready to be drafted, defended, and evaluated.

Our expertise and our process are being noticed. We have seen our ideas inspire legislation, shape necessary amendments, drive agency policy, and put us at more tables advising more policymakers.

Now, we are building the next chapter of our work to meet the current political landscape.

Over the past several weeks, our program team has worked to better define where we can bring original thinking to the field, where our voice matters most, and where we can provide the highest level of impact. This means being more intentional about the work we pursue and brainstorming ways to help policymakers overcome recurring barriers (e.g., strong policies with large price tags) and navigate persistent narratives shaped by the tension between perception and reality. This has led us back to using first principles to uncover new policy solutions and leaning into new areas where policymakers and strategic partners have made it clear our perspective is needed.

We will continue to press forward on existing priorities, such as case clearances to restore police legitimacy and strengthen deterrence, bail policy that protects public safety without defaulting to unnecessary detention, record sealing to give people a clean slate, and juvenile deflection to keep kids out of the system when possible.

We will also lean more deliberately into several interconnected areas:

Rule of law. We will shape our work to bring integrity back to police and prosecutors and defend federalism in state policing power. This means guarding against overreach, politicization, and weaponization of the system, regardless of which officials breach the public trust. Public safety depends on a justice system people can trust, and that trust requires fairness, restraint, neutrality, and accountability. This issue is just as significant at the federal level as at the local level, but with different solutions necessary for each.

Behavioral health and homelessness. We will look more closely at how the justice system can better respond to behavioral health needs and instability. Too often, courts, jails, and prisons are asked to manage mental illness, substance abuse, and housing with tools that were built only for criminal risk. A better approach is needed to prevent people from cycling in and out of jail. Behavioral health policy has to serve both the individual in crisis and their community.

AI and technology. We will explore how technology and innovation can help create a safer and more effective justice system, making clear that government applications must come with limits. AI and other tools should improve the transparency of data, efficiency of prosecutions, and accuracy of investigations. They should not expand surveillance, weaken due process, or put unchecked power in the hands of government.

People should feel safe in the ordinary places where they live their lives. Americans should be able to trust the systems that hold people accountable. Policymakers should only invest taxpayer dollars in solutions that work. And our system must treat every person with dignity, even when they have done wrong.

Our charge is to help make this vision a reality.