The ambiguity of numbers and statistics has the potential for misleading interpretations, as is evident in the case of seizing and interdicting drugs at and beyond U.S. borders. Why is measuring interdiction “success” politically tricky?
Not only are drug seizure figures used as evidence for policy success, but they remain largely unchallenged while serving multiple interests (and functions) for different state departments.
mythical numbers
Peter Andreas explores how “mythical numbers” occur due to various reasons. For example, he mentions that some numbers are noticeably missing, some are recycled through the media without accountability, and unimpressive numbers are suppressed. These issues, and more, present interdiction success as “decorations” for the policy process.
Essentially, these issues boil down to the lack of accountability for the purity of the figures and their source, an issue that is aggravated by different government agencies competing against one another for budget allocation and politicians attempting to prove policy success.
US border as a political battleground
Using the US border as a battleground between Democrats and Republicans is a tale as old as time, with Republicans attempting to control illicit drug flow and immigration as a priority to advance their agenda.
Operation intercept
Consider President Nixon’s Operation Intercept, an anti-drug measure that resulted in a near shutdown of border crossings between Mexico and the United States in 1969, a significant effort in his campaign. The practice of using misleading numbers is still prevalent today.
Justin Reid describes Operation Intercept as “an exercise in international extortion” where journalists reported questionable statistics provided by the government to promote (and question) Nixon’s upcoming war on drugs, which followed two years later.
Operation Lone Star
The practice of using misleading numbers is still prevalent today. The Marshall Project published an article demonstrating how political leaders amplify specific figures and shift metrics to further their campaign and policy agenda. An investigation of Operation Lone Star reveals how Texas Governor Greg Abbott skewed data to describe a multi-billion dollar border operation as successful in an effort to get re-elected.
An investigation by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and The Marshall Project found, “The state’s claim of success has been based on shifting metrics that included crimes with no connection to the border, work conducted by troopers stationed in targeted counties prior to the operation, and arrest and drug seizure efforts that do not clearly distinguish DPS’s role from that of other agencies.” The article is quite in-depth and dives into specific details of Operation Lone Star and how the figures were used as weapons in the fight to support Governor Abbott’s policy goal of securing the border (and getting reelected).
Policy, Numbers and Transnational Crime
This commentary would only be complete by mentioning that policy is challenging to measure with complete transparency, attention to specific (relevant) indicators, and accountability. In the illicit flow of goods, money, and people, where gathering and measuring data is even more challenging, attention to reliability and validity is very important. Using the US border as an example, it's apparent how policy and the reaction to transnational crime has an impact on the US criminal justice system (and global efforts to target cross-border crimes).
References
- Arsovska, J. (2011). Conceptualizing and studying organized crime in a global context. In C. Smith, S. Zhang, R. Barberet, Routledge Handbook of International Criminology. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Andreas, P. (2010). The Politics of Measuring Illicit Flows and Policy Effectiveness - Alternative Formats In: P Andreas, KM Greenhill (eds.), Sex, Drugs, and Body Counts: The Politics of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict (pp. 23-45). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
- Reid, J. M. (2022). “An exercise in international extortion”: Operation “Intercept” and Nixon’s 1969 war on drugs (Order No. 29995846). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2742630076). Retrieved from https://ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exercise-international-extortion-operation/docview/2742630076/se-2
What is the connection between the public and the criminal justice system? In many ways, individuals who partake in criminal behavior are outcasts from the general. Yet, no matter how we box these individuals or push them far back in our review mirror, the public and the criminal justice system overlap significantly.
Consider that:
- Public views shape policies and laws that guide criminal justice processes. As well as the acceptance of formerly incarcerated people who reenter society after serving time.
- The jury system directly implicates the sentencing of specific individuals placed on trial, holding their future (and the future of their loved ones) in their hands.
- Tax money is used to fund criminal justice systems — from police salaries and governmental departments charged with protecting public safety to corrections expenditures and court expenditures.
These are three simple, everyday ways the public connects with the criminal justice system.
The Disconnect Between the Public and the Criminal Justice System
Various narratives about the criminal justice system are circulating in the public realm, from police giving up on all but the most serious crimes to prisons being beyond capacity.
While these stories largely hold truth and can be applied around the world, there is a big lesson that can be learned from public policy failure and the impact that it has on the community’s trust in the criminal justice system.
Prejudice and judgement
The disconnect is more apparent when comparing certain communities, bringing racial and ethnic tension to the forefront. For example, a 2015 Washington Post shared that “Black teens who commit a few crimes go to jail as often as white teens who commit dozens.”
Similar disconnect parallels can be drawn between disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, brain injuries, and mental health conditions.
By isolating those “prone” to criminal behavior, it’s easier for opposing groups within the community to isolate themselves from the system and harbor judgemental attitudes.
The Prosecutor
I've recently finished reading The Prosecutor, an autobiography by Nazir Afzal, a British solicitor and former prosecutor within the Crown Prosecution Services. Nazir presents a very interesting approach to managing crime, and it all comes back to connecting with the community.
I highly recommend reading Nazir Afzal’s book to gain insight into the challenges and processes faced by players in the criminal justice system — and how the civilian community plays a larger role than anticipated.
Balancing second chances and public safety
Daily Press recently shared a story about Democrats and Republicans bumping heads on significant criminal justice reforms, namely a rehabilitation and reentry bill package. A main component of the proposed package is the “second look” bill, which allows sentencing hearings 10 years into an inmate’s term, regardless of the crime.
As the author writes, “The goal of the proposed legislation is laudable. But its potential impact on public safety is so great it should not be rammed through on a one-party vote without debate.”
While the article is United States-focused, the lesson of political collaboration is a universal one. As the column states, “The ultimate goal should be to create a corrections system that actually corrects behavior while protecting the public from harm.”
Social reintegration and public safety
UNODC has published an introductory handbook on the prevention of recidivism and the social reintegration of offenders, where they distinguish the link between social reintegration and public safety. The handbook highlights the social and economic costs of failed reintegration as a major concern for policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries. However, it’s important to remember the necessity of reintegration programs for public safety and the socioeconomic development of countries.
So, how does the public feel about reentry? A recent report reveals that public members appear open and supportive of utilizing “second chance” mechanisms in various contexts, especially among offenders serving long-term prison sentences. While levels of support vary by race, gender, and age, it seems the cost of incarceration to taxpayers is a significant motivation for using second-chance mechanisms. As the paper says, “The USA’s current reliance on long-term prison sentences mounts incredible human and monetary costs that are disproportionate to their effects on crime rates and public safety.”
There are alternatives to long-term prison sentences that balance public safety and the proper reintegration of offenders. The Commission of Effective Criminal Sanctions has presented a few key areas to consider.
- Non-incarceration community solutions that prevent the creation of a conviction record for less serious offenders
- Enhanced parole and probation oversight
- Granting occupational licenses to individuals with past convictions
- Revise access to and use of criminal background data for non-law enforcement purposes
- Legal assistance concerning secondary repercussions
- Training in the exercise of discretion
How can the public community help with reintegration
Reintegration of former offenders demands the community's assistance to succeed. By taking local ownership of the reintegration process, it can benefit both returnees and the community. These community-based reintegration projects range from collective returnees and new community-based projects to including returnees in existing community-based projects.
Community-level initiatives
Community-level initiatives should focus on short- and medium-term barriers to reintegration, foster dialogue and social cohesion, support the resilience of returnees, and support the longer-term sustainability of intervention outcomes.
When the community collectively works to combat stigmatization, it empowers former offenders to build meaningful connections and strengthen their social networks.
Community leaders
Community leaders, in particular, play a significant role in the reintegration of ex-prisoners. Depending on the country, these community leaders may include traditional and religious leaders as well as local civil society organizations. By nurturing strong ties to the community, these community leaders play a role in mediating between former offenders and the community.
General public
While criminal justice lands squarely in the laps of the authorities, the public can still play a valuable role in encouraging reintegration and improving the results of criminal justice efforts.
Consider the following steps as a starting point:
- Engage with law enforcement by volunteering, offering constructive feedback on local authorities, participating in law enforcement surveys, and staying updated with local police departments on social media.
- Participate in neighborhood watch and attend community meetings.
- Provide informal social control and services that reduce the likelihood of juvenile criminal behavior.
- Cooperate with fellow community members to create a safe space for vulnerable individuals.
Are there any other ways that the community can positively contribute to criminal justice and reform?
Discuss existing and potential governmental responses to right-wing nationalism and neo-Nazism in one or several countries. Are these punitive and preventive measures sufficient in addressing those ideologies?
The severity of the threat of right-wing terrorism has been debated in recent years, with many arguing that right-wing terrorism is rising, particularly compared to Islamic religious terrorism. Other analysts argue that the threat is overstated (Jones et al., 2020).
However, right-wing terrorism’s connection to right-wing nationalism and neo-Nazism, and the associated threat of violence, xenophobia, and political turbulence, presents a security threat to the United States and the rest of the world (Koehler, 2015).
It is essential that national governments introduce both punitive and preventive policies to address rising ideologies of hatred and violence.
I will briefly discuss the rise of right-wing nationalism and neo-Nazism in Europe (using the Pan-Nordic region as an example) and the United States of America. Next, I will compare existing governmental responses and assess the effectiveness of these measures. Finally, I will recommend additional policy efforts to consider.
Presence of right-wing nationalism and neo-Nazism
The resurgence of right-wing nationalism, a political ideology that combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes, desires to bring back power to the people and is typically antithetical to liberal democracy (Halikiopoulou, 2019).
Right-wing nationalism is typically hegemonic in its cause as a collective (Halikiopoulou, 2019), and extreme right-wing nationalism and activism are connected with neo-Nazi subcultures that exercise violence and racism (Mattsson & Johansson, 2021).
Some of these right-wing extremist groups are based within a certain region, while others are transactional in nature (and threat). By comparing extreme right-wing nationalism between Pan-Nordic countries and the United States, I hope to draw on similarities and differences between the threat.
Right-wing nationalism in Pan-Nordic countries
Much of the focus on right-wing nationalism is centered on Europe, home to several established right-wing terrorist networks. For example, Nordiska motståndsrörelsen (Nordic Resistance Movement, or NRM) is a transnational neo-Nazi organization that operates in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. The NRM has threatened and attacked minority groups such as homosexual communities, Muslim asylum seekers, and ideological rivals (Jones et al., 2020).
Consider Denmark in the 1980s. The country experienced increased immigration which led to the emergence of a xenophobic subculture and the strong presence of the radical right. Various political and social movements have evolved the radical right into a social movement that includes nationalist associations, militant skinheads, and neo-Nazis.
While there have been lulls in popularity as rival ideologies counter the efforts of the extreme right, national and international circumstances in the past two decades have offered new opportunities for the Danish radical right — both in the streets and as a parliamentary voice (Karpantschof & Mikkelsen, 2017). Similar trends and developments have emerged in other Pan-Nordic countries.
Right-wing nationalism in the United States of America
In the United States, the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism has assembled a list of 150 right-wing terrorist acts and attempts between 1993 to 2017 (ADL report, 2022).
Unlike European examples, where right-wing nationalists are often members of organized and/or political groups, many of these attacks in the United States are seemingly executed by lone perpetrators connected to (or inspired by) an underground network with leaderless resistance (Frontline PBS, 2020). Most right-wing extremist attacks fall under two categories: white supremacists (including neo-Nazis) and anti-government extremists (ADL report, 2022).
In recent years, organized groups branded right-wing nationalists in the United States, such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, have become more prominent. As in the Pan-Nordic region, certain international and social developments have created a platform for right-wing nationalists to gain momentum. For example, the strengthening of liberal political parties and their ideologies (Pahnke, 2021) and the military response to white-power activism (Frontline PBS, 2020).
Existing governmental responses and effectiveness
Political and social expression is fundamental in right-wing nationalism and extremist movements, and governmental policies are necessary to prevent and punish threats and acts of violence.
Governmental responses in Pan-Nordic countries
The NMR is pro-violence and uncompromising, spreading its political agenda and leveraging different kinds of violence, threats, and harassment to prevent retaliation. Yet the NMR remains a legal organization (in Sweden), and NMR members swiftly confront politicians who criticize the movement (Kenes, 2021).
NMR leadership dismisses illegal activities committed by members as isolated and independent acts. In response, the government has mapped out the most active members in the NMR. A minority percentage have been convicted or prosecuted for crimes, with almost a quarter of cases leading to imprisonment. The NMR is also on the radar of the Swedish Security Police (Säpo), who have classified the NMR’s violent tendencies as the second biggest threat in Sweden (after Islamic terrorism) (Kenes, 2021).
Apart from monitoring groups and punishing violent perpetrators, the government is also implementing policies that prioritize equality and promote equal treatment of all persons without discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnic origin. For example, Denmark has established the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR). In addition, the court has found discriminatory video statements by the leader of the Hard Line extreme-right party not to be protected by freedom of speech (ECRI, 2022).
Some European countries have banned right-wing extremist networks and placed sanctions on right-wing extremist groups that allow governments to freeze financial assets and criminalize group members. However, the internet and social media forums remain important platforms for right-wing extremists to spread propaganda and coordinate their actions (Jones et al., 2020).
Other efforts to strengthen democracy against extreme right-wing nationalism in Sweden include initiatives to increase election turnout to enhance democratic awareness, implement democracy-promoting initiatives in civil society, promote democracy in schools, and protect human rights by combatting discrimination, xenophobia, and other forms of intolerance. Culture is prioritized as part of the democratic system, and there are initiatives to reduce exclusion among young people and foreign-born individuals (Björklund & Ohlsson, 2011).
Governmental responses in the United States of America
In the United States of America, the comparable right-wing movement is composed of a “highly diverse and loosely connected network of individuals and groups who reject U.S. laws, taxation, currency, and the government’s legitimacy, especially regarding the control of firearms.” (Koehler, 2015).
The fluid and underground nature of these groups makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect communication and group structures before a violent event occurs. Even so, the United States has not banned any far-right organizations (Jones et al., 2020), and the focus remains on religious terrorist networks such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
Although not always apparent, the early warning signs of violent right-wing actions are often ignored, as was the case with the January 06 storming of the Capitol Building, which revealed the lack of preparation for the event and the failure to translate operational intelligence into an effective preventative plan (Perliger, 2023).
Policy recommendations focus on better communication and coordination between the federal government, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to prevent future events of a similar nature. Public education and awareness of the threat of domestic terrorism is also a priority (Perliger, 2023).
As punishment, civil lawsuits for damages by the victims of far-right violence have been an effective tool (Perliger, 2023). The Biden Administration has also introduced a new unit within the Justice Department that consists of a team of attorneys dedicated to investigating domestic terrorism and tightening the focus on U.S. national security within the borders (Bergengruen & Hennigan, 2022).
Effectiveness of governmental responses
While these preventive and punitive measures acknowledge the threat of extreme right-wing nationalism and neo-Nazi movements, the threat remains understated and debated.
Both the loose and fluid nature of these networks in the United States of America (as well as the country’s strong policy on free speech) and the political authority of these organizations in Pan-Nordic countries suggest that greater effort is needed to focus on preventing the threat of violence.
By studying the United States and the Pan-Nordic region as two Western regions with differing politics and cultures, it is apparent that nuanced efforts are needed to address the cause of right-wing nationalism and the triggers that inspire growth in each region. Some of these efforts will overlap, while others are more specific to the political and social climate.
Potential governmental responses
Mattsson and Johansson (2020) report on the role school and teachers play in handling racism in schools to prevent the growth of the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden. Results show that attempts to isolate troubled students lead to resistance and stigmatization, which fuel the radicalization process. To prevent this from happening, schools and their staff should be educated on the difference between promoting an anti-racist agenda and satisfying the cognitive and emotional needs of racist students.
A long-term approach is recommended by Perliger, who suggests the development of socialization and behavioral processes can prevent political polarization in the United States (2023). A push for developing mechanisms and solutions that address the spreading of hate speech, misinformation, and extremist rhetoric in online spheres should also be a key focus (Perliger, 2023).
In both regions, public education on immigration and its implications are crucial for improving tolerance for migrant communities. Reeskens & van Oorschot suggest that public opinion toward migrants originates from “aspirations about citizenship, as well as perceptions about its realization” (2017). Policymakers should be concerned about the impact of misinformation and how it correlates with immigration policies to nurture a public opinion of tolerance.
Finally, the origins of violence should be considered and intercepted. Mattsson and Johansson study how violence is reproduced and how a violent upbringing and a violent environment during childhood create ideal conditions for a violent neo-Nazi lifestyle (2021). Effective prevention strategies are essential to promote awareness about child mistreatment and to foster a commitment to social change, especially for at-risk children in schools.
References
- ADL Report. (2022). A Dark and Constant Rage: 25 Years of Right-Wing Terrorism in the United States. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/CR_5154_25YRS%20RightWing%20Terrorism_V5.pdf
- Bergengruen, V. & Hennigan, W. (January 24, 2022). Prosecuting Domestic Terrorism is Notoriously Difficult. This New Team of Lawyers Has a Mounting Caseload. TIME. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://time.com/6140308/domestic-terrorism-justice-department-unit-joe-biden/
- Björklund, J. & Ohlsson, B. (2011). Action plan to safeguard democracy against violence-promoting extremism. Government Offices of Sweden. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://www.government.se/contentassets/b94f163a3c5941aebaeb78174ea27a29/action-plan-to-safeguard-democracy-against-violence-promoting-extremism-sr.-20111244 ECRI. (2022).
- ECRI Report on Denmark (sixth monitoring cycle). Council of Europe. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://rm.coe.int/6th-ecri-report-on-denmark-/1680a6d5e4
- Frontline PBS | Official. (November 03, 2020). Documenting Hate: New American Nazis (full documentary) | Frontline. [Video]. YouTube https://youtu.be/-XFBVAAzXjc
- Halikiopoulou, D. (2019) Right-wing populism as a nationalist vision of legitimating collective choice: a supply-side perspective. The International Spectator, 54 (2). pp. 35-49. ISSN 0393-2729 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2019.1588544
- Jones, S., G., Doxsee, C., and Harrington, N. (March 2020). The right-wing terrorism threat in Europe. A report of the CSIS Transnational Threats Project. Center for Strategies and International Studies.
- Karpantschof, R., & Mikkelsen. F. (2017). The rise and transformation of the radical right movement in Denmark 1980–2015. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 40, 8, 712-730.
- Kenes, B. (April 2020). NMR: A Nordic neo-Nazi organization with aims of establishing totalitarian rule across Scandinavia. ECPS. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://www.populismstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ECPS-Organisational-Profile-Series-4.pdf
- Koehler, D. (2015). Right-wing extremism and terrorism in Europe. Current developments and issues for the future. Prism 6, 2, 85-104.
- Mattsson, Ch. & Johansson, Th. (2020) The hateful other neo-Nazis in school and teachers strategies for handling racism, British Journal of Sociology of Education 41, 8,1149-1163,
- Mattsson, Ch., & Johansson, Th. (2021). “We are the White Aryan Warriors”: Violence, homosociality, the construction of masculinity in the National Socialist Movement in Sweden. Men and Masculinities 24, 3, 393-410.
- Pahnke, A. (March 31, 2021). How the far right got a stranglehold on the West. Aljazeera. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/3/31/how-the-far-right-got-a-stranglehold-on-the-west
- Perliger, A. (January 02, 2023). Contextualizing the Jan 6th Report: Contemporary Trends in Far-Right Violence in the US. ICCT. Accessed on May 20, 2023, from https://www.icct.nl/publication/contextualising-jan-6th-report-contemporary-trends-far-right-violence-us
- Reeskens, T., & Van Oorschot, W. (2017). Conceptions of Citizenship and Tolerance towards Immigrants. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 177–198). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795452.003.0007