18 Leaders The Economist July 10th 2021
kets as signs of too little governmental interference rather than
too much; and it argues, in contradiction of common sense and
political reality, that “defunding the police” is the solution to ris
ing crime. Its most enthusiastic adherents seem to be citizens
comfortably insulated from both violence and from need.
Mr Adams is not their avatar. A former cop himself, he wants
neither to defund nor abolish the police department, but to re
form it. Even before his run for office, Mr Adams had been agitat
ing to make it easier for officers who brutalised citizens to be
sacked. But he resists the patronising attitude, adopted by some
progressives, that resurgent violent crime visited largely upon
the poor is an acceptable tradeoff on the path to social justice.
Rather than increase the city’s budget by 25% in real terms, as
Mr de Blasio did, Mr Adams has plans to trim its expansive bu
reaucracy. He says he wants to repeat the $1.5bn reduction in
spending that Michael Bloomberg managed while he was mayor.
The problem of highcost cities largely reflects a lack of hous
ing—something that no “rent stabilisation” scheme, however
elaborate, can paper over. From 2010 to 2019, for every five new
jobs created in New York, only one new unit of housing wasbuilt. Mr Adams is right to say that new development must be
rapidly approved in the city—and that the burden of change
should be borne not just by poor neighbourhoods but also by
posh ones like the charming, absurdly lowslung West Village.
It is folly to place too much faith in anyone who aims to run
America’s largest city. Even Mr de Blasio once mustered some
enthusiasm. Mr Bloomberg’s admirable technocratic impulses
got him mired in unending debates over taxes on fizzy drinks.
Unfortunately, Mr Adams’s judgment also has its flaws. The
rumour that he lives parttime in New Jersey did not die even
after he let the press tour his sparse townhouse. Incorrect finan
cial filings do not inspire confidence in a man who is about to
take over a $100bn operation. As a machine politician, he owes
many people many favours (see United States section). Alarm
ingly, during his campaign, he labelled an alliance between two
of his opponents in the primary an attempt to suppress black
votes in the city—a cheap, false and incendiary attack.
Getting New York back on track will require sustained and
skilful leadership, not hollow displaysof populism. Gotham has
already endured enough of those.nH
ow shouldsocieties punishthosewhocommittheworst
crimes? As fewer countries use the death penalty, more are
imposing life sentences (see International section). The number
of people jailed for life worldwide rose by more than 80% be
tween 2000 and 2014, to nearly half a million.
And a good thing, too, liberals and conservatives might agree.
As a punishment for heinous crimes, life in prison strikes many
as a sensible compromise between the inhumanity of the death
penalty and the leniency of letting the guilty eventually walk
free. The success of that argument is one reason why fewer peo
ple are now being put to death.
In fact, life sentences can also count as acts of punitive ex
cess. They keep people penned up long after
most of them have lost the capacity or inclina
tion to be violent. They are also a poor deter
rent. Potential criminals are more effectively
restrained by a high likelihood of being caught
than by a severe punishment.
Although, in America at least, it is cheaper to
lock people up for life than to execute them (be
cause deathrow cases involve endless legal
wrangling), old codgers make costly prisoners, because of their
health problems. By one estimate, they are three times more ex
pensive than younger inmates. Money spent keeping 60 and
70yearold exthugs behind bars for ever would nearly always
prevent more crimes if it were spent instead on better policing,
or on rehabilitation.
Life sentences take many forms, of varying severity. Critics
should focus on the substance, not the label. Sentences that of
fer no possibility of parole are far harsher than those that offer a
chance of release, however distant. Some ultralong sentences,
by contrast, are no different from life. Alaska does not impose
life sentences, but it does jail people for 99 years.Thosewhowanttolimitprison terms should start with the
cruellest and most egregious. These include sentences imposed
on children, or for nonviolent crimes, as under “three strikes”
laws in some American states. Lifers should not be singled out
for harsh treatment as they are in Ukraine, where some are
locked in their cells for 23 hours a day. Nor should life sentences
be mandatory for particular offences, which bars courts from
taking into account any mitigating circumstances.
What about when crimes are shockingly depraved or cost ma
ny lives? The judge who sentenced Brenton Tarrant for murder
ing 51 people in 2019 at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zea
land, a country that abolished the death penalty in 1989, had no
qualms about throwing away the key. “Your
crimes are so wicked that even if you are de
tained until you die, it will not exhaust the re
quirements of punishment,” he told Mr Tarrant.
That view is understandable. And yet even in
this case life without the possibility of parole is
wrong. No amount of time can expiate Mr Tar
rant’s crimes. But prisons are about harm pre
vention, not expiation.
A better approach is that of Norway. It sets a maximum sen
tence of 21 years. However, if a convict is still judged to be a dan
ger to society after that time, he can be detained until he is not.
Such a rule protects potential victims while also offering the
criminal a measure of hope and a reason to reform. Keep the keys
In 2013 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all pris
oners are entitled to the prospect of eventual release. For a few
who remain dangerous in their dotage, such as orchestrators of
genocide, that may be too big a risk. But formostmurderers, 20
25 years behind bars will prove long enough.nWhy life sentences without parole are almost always a bad ideaPointlessly punitive
Penal reform