Spencer Schneier
      Staff Writer

There’s a lot wrong with the way most Americans think about crime, none of which is best exemplified by “tough on crime” policies.

From national politicians to local officials, the notion of being “tough on crime” is often a popular one with voters, as many subscribe to the flawed logic behind increased length of sentences, mandatory sentencing and more aggressive police tactics.

This language has a long and troubled history, with politicians using it as a racially-coded appeal to white, middle-class voters. It has not always been a racially-coded appeal, however, as there have been occasions where officials and public advocates argued in favor of it simply from a position of misguidance.

The arguments in favor of “tough on crime” policies tend to be a bit of a mix of both, with one example being Rudy Giuliani’s supposedly effective tough on crime policies in New York City during the 1990s. He was given much credit for establishing increasingly aggressive policing tactics and higher arrest rates, citing his belief that minor crimes such as graffiti could lead people to more serious crimes like murder.

The reality is that the most likely root cause of the drop in crime in New York City during the 1990s was the economic boom, which has a much stronger relationship with crime reduction historically than any police tactic or punishment does.

Looking at the policy from a greater perspective, what it essentially does is create increased contact between law enforcement and individuals and creates bloat in the correctional system as more and more inmates are admitted, which requires more resources being dedicated to imprisoning individual citizens.

Often times, these resources are not dedicated (which is an entirely different article than this one), and the increased friction exacerbates already existing problems within the justice system.

In Giuliani’s case, it is difficult to say how much of a role race played in his thinking directly, though implicitly it surely factored in largely.

He has since made clear his position on whether he values police lives or African American lives more, when he said on Beyonce’s Superbowl performance that he “thought it was really outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us and keep us alive.”

To him, her nod to Black Lives Matter activism is an affront to the people that “keep us alive.” Ignoring the absurdity of this argument, it highlights his pretty clear bias that would lead to it playing a role in his views on policing.

Giuliani was a huge proponent of stop-and-frisk, hiring William Bratton as Police Commissioner, a proponent of the same ideology as Giuliani and believer in other “tough on crime” policies such as zero tolerance policy.

In a city where the police union is perhaps one of the strongest unions in the country (funny how Republicans seem to have no problem with this particular union), it makes sense that a situation could exist where the mayor promotes such tactics.

But when Richard Nixon, considered a mainstream politician at the time, appeals to segregationists in the South by promising to be “tough on crime,” it shows more of a systematic problem with the ideology, not just that it is flawed at a conceptual level.

This speaks to a larger, more systematic problem with the way that government officials think.

They tend to prescribe violence and punishment as solutions at an alarming rate, ignoring the historical ineffectiveness of such policies essentially across the board.

In a debate where every presidential candidate, with the exception of Bernie Sanders (who hasn’t been ultimately clear in his intentions for foreign policy), is talking about increased force against ISIS or militarizing the border even further, it points to an increasingly troubling trend of violence.

And in a broken, corrupt, racially biased criminal justice system, it has disastrous consequences.