When Tough Talk Fails: D.C.’s Crime Bills Won’t Deliver Safety

President Donald J. Trump has intensified efforts to clean up Washington, D.C., which he describes as overrun with “violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people.” Following a series of executive orders and the deployment of the National Guard, congressional Republicans have introduced parallel legislation in the name of crime prevention. In the nation’s capital, several of the proposals take aim at youth and young adults. Unfortunately, these bills focus on punishment after the fact—doing little to stop crime and ignoring research that shows individuals under 25 respond well to rehabilitation.

Understanding D.C. Crime

The administration is correct in calling for D.C. to address youth crime and public disorder more effectively. Unfortunately, the proposed repeal of successful, evidence-based laws will do little to actually apprehend criminals or stop crimes from happening. Instead, they target those who have already served their time and paid their debt to society.

While the intense focus on juvenile crime in D.C. comes immediately after the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia reported crime at a 30-year low, it isn’t unwarranted. Most people continue to believe crime is a major problem in big cities, and D.C. in particular has had several high-profile violent crime cases.

Further, the data may not tell the full story. A federal investigation launched after the recent firing of an MPD commander for mislabeling violent crime statistics has cast even more doubt on the official numbers. Moreover, reported offenses don’t always reflect the overall level of crime—and many D.C. residents would say that crime remains a pervasive quality-of-life issue. City officials are concerned enough about a seasonal uptick to have instituted a citywide curfew last month.

The city’s ambient level of violence has pernicious effects on its youth, who are exposed to twice the level of community violence as the national average (7.4 percent vs. 3.8 percent), with more than a third of middle school students witnessing violence firsthand. These adverse childhood experiences correlate with justice system involvement, whether as a victim or an offender. This sad reality was made starkly clear when the two 15-year-old suspects in the Edward Coristine attack appeared in court for the first time recently—without a parent or guardian by their side.

The Proposal

Four specific D.C. municipal laws emphasizing rehabilitation and reentry are being targeted:

1) The Youth Rehabilitation Act gives judges the discretion to set aside mandatory minimums for certain people who committed crimes before age 25—weighing factors like age, role in the offense, prior record, program participation, and capacity for rehabilitation. They can also potentially set a conviction aside if the individual successfully completes their sentence and demonstrates rehabilitation.

2) The Incarceration Reduction Act is a “look-back” law that allows offenders under 25 to seek a reduced sentence after serving 15 years, with the court weighing evidence of rehabilitation, institutional conduct, maturity, and public-safety risk.

3) The Second Chance Amendment Act is D.C.’s “Clean Slate” law, which enables sealing of some conviction records after a waiting period (typically five years for misdemeanors and eight years for felonies) if the person remains conviction-free and meets other criteria. Most serious offenses are ineligible.

4) Legislation to lower the adult-prosecution age to 14 years by expanding adult transfer eligibility in most violent crime cases.

These changes—first suggested by U.S. District Attorney Jeanine Pirro—reflect an approach that emphasizes punishment over prevention. Pirro has said outright that she doesn’t see it as her role to prevent crime, framing the work of prosecutors as limited to ensuring lengthy sentences. Repealing these laws would carry that philosophy forward, affecting individuals years after their offenses, often at a point where they have already taken steps toward rehabilitation. Such measures may increase penalties, but they do little to stop violence before it occurs.

Removing the ability for a judge to reconsider a sentence 15 years later or seal a criminal record 10 years later are hardly crime-fighting tactics. Research repeatedly shows that the certainty and swiftness of punishment—not its severity—is the determining factor in deterring crime. Rather than revisiting old sentences, resources would be better spent on solving crimes quickly and ensuring accountability when offenses occur.

Then there are the proposals to charge 14-year-olds as adults for violent crimes and to keep young adults incarcerated for longer periods. Common sense should tell someone that sending a child into the adult criminal system—surrounded by older, more hardened offenders—is more likely to deepen criminal behavior than stop it. Research backs that up. Studies consistently show that children exposed to the system are more likely to reoffend. The adult system isn’t built to rehabilitate youth. Considering that almost all young people who commit felony offenses will get out and go back to the D.C. community, age-appropriate rehabilitation is essential. Otherwise, we’re just creating bigger costs to both public safety and our economy down the line.

Better Ways to Reduce Crime

Getting “tough on crime” requires addressing crime today, not taking away judicial discretion or the opportunity for folks to get back on their feet.

For example, the certainty of catching offenders matters far more for public safety than the severity of punishment imposed months or years later. Yet the solve rate (also known as a case clearance rate) for violent offenses in D.C. remains incredibly low. Last year, D.C. police failed to make an arrest in 40 percent of homicides and more than two-thirds of robberies reported. Investment in local law enforcement to solve crimes and catch offenders should be a top priority. This could mean addressing recruitment and retention challenges, reducing forensic and technological backlogs, and strengthening community trust so victims and witnesses are more willing to cooperate.

Further investment into research-backed programs, such as community violence intervention (CVI), would be more successful in preventing crime. CVI programs rely on street outreach by “credible messengers”—trusted individuals who share similar life experiences and backgrounds with the community’s high-risk youth. Usually former gang members who have been involved in the justice system themselves, violence interrupters mediate disputes before they escalate; mentor young people; and connect them with services like job training, education, and therapy. Their lived experience not only models a pathway out of violence, it gives them a level of access and influence that even the best police officer, social worker, or government official can’t match.

And yes, programs that reward accountability, remorse, and rehabilitation—like those now targeted for repeal—can increase public safety in the long term. D.C.’s own second look law has seen extraordinary success, with a recidivism rate of just 3 percent. Additionally, studies of record-sealing laws found that only 7.1 percent of individuals were rearrested within five years (2.6 percent for a violent offense), and even fewer were reconvicted—rates that are much lower than comparable groups.

Conclusion

Whatever the numbers say, both parties can agree that juvenile violence must be addressed; that the government, preferably local, should do more to keep communities safe; and that we must ensure our system does more good than harm in the process. Ultimately, the right approach balances accountability with rehabilitation.

If the goal is to clean up the streets and make D.C. safe, then the proposed changes fail to address those needs. Instead, the focus should be on evidence, preventing crime before it happens, and getting resources to those who need them.