On May 15, Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) went to the floor of the House of Representatives and said he supported a federal takeover of Washington, D.C.'s criminal justice laws "to improve public safety in our nation's capital… as violent crime skyrockets." Similarly, Congressman William Timmons (R-SC) claimed that crime in D.C. is "out of control" and "criminals have never acted more brazenly." 

Violent crime, however, is not "skyrocketing" in D.C. in 2024. According to data maintained by the D.C. Metropolitan Police, after a significant increase last year, violent crime is down 27% through May 17 compared to 2023. This includes a 24% reduction in homicide, a 29% drop in assault with a dangerous weapon, and a 27% decline in robbery. 

House Republicans, however, are not letting the facts get in the way of their preferred narrative. Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL) introduced the DC CRIMES Act "to reduce the skyrocketing crime in our nation's capital." Donalds says he offered the legislation because "[t]he American people deserve a safe capital city [and] I will not stand idly by as it descends into chaos." 

According to Donalds, his bill "asserts Congressional control over D.C." His proposal has two main components. First, it eliminates the ability of judges to grant lighter sentences to certain young offenders under 25. The D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act allows judges, at their discretion, to impose reduced sentences for younger offenders, except those convicted of murder or sexual assault. Donalds' bill also prohibits the D.C. Council from making any future changes to criminal sentencing laws.

Last week, the House approved the DC CRIMES Act on a vote of 225-181. Despite being premised on a false narrative, Donalds' measure attracted the support of all Republicans who voted and 18 Democrats.

The DC CRIMES Act is an affront to democracy to the more than 675,000 people who live in Washington, D.C. It now heads to the Senate, where its prospects are uncertain. If the DC CRIMES Act were to become law, however, the evidence suggests it would increase crime in D.C.

The impact of the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act

What happens when a young person is convicted of a crime? It becomes a permanent stain on their record, making it difficult to find legitimate employment. This can lead to recidivism, and the destructive cycle continues. 

The D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act gives judges discretion to chart a different course. The law allows young adults to receive reduced sentences. Upon completion of the sentence, eligible young adults can have the conviction set aside. This gives young offenders the opportunity to have a fresh start.

The provisions of the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act were most frequently used by judges for "traffic and/or weapon offenses." And a reduced sentence does not mean that the sentence was insignificant. For example, judges who invoked the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act sentenced persons convicted of weapons to an average of 14 months of incarceration. When the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act was not invoked, the average sentence was 27 months.  

Does this program work? Yes, according to a 2022 study by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of D.C. The study found that "[p]ersons whose convictions were set aside were likely to have a lower number of rearrests and reconvictions than persons whose convictions were not set aside." The difference remained significant "when controlling for differences in criminal history, current offense types… and demographics." 

Donalds should understand the importance of allowing young adults the ability to move beyond a criminal conviction. Donalds "was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute when he was 18 and had just moved to Florida for college." He avoided serious consequences "thanks to a pretrial diversion program." Donalds then "caught a bribery charge three years later." But he was able to get "both records expunged." The flexible sentencing afforded to Donalds as a young adult allowed him to pursue a career and eventually become a Congressman. 

Florida has a "Youthful Offenders" law that has a similar purpose as D.C. Other states with similar laws include Michigan, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont. During the debate on the DC CRIMES Act, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) also noted that D.C. already has harsher criminal penalties than other states. For example, armed robbery in D.C. has a maximum penalty of 30 years incarceration. In Kentucky, the maximum penalty for armed robbery is 20 years, and in North Dakota, it is just 10 years. 

Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) went on national TV and declared that "Washington D.C. has become a warzone." Marshall said that he fears "for the safety and life of my workers on Capitol Hill walking to and from work." What Marshall did not mention is that the violent crime rate in Wichita, Kansas' largest city, is higher than the violent crime rate in D.C., according to the most recent comprehensive data. 

The end of self-rule

Oddly, Donalds' bill prohibits the D.C. Council from making any changes to sentencing laws — even changes that impose harsher sentences. It suggests that the bill is more about asserting dominance over the people of D.C. — an overwhelmingly Democratic city — than reducing crime. 

In March, just before Donalds introduced his legislation, the D.C. Council passed "Secure D.C., an omnibus crime bill that, among other things, enhanced penalties for gun offenses and expanded pretrial detention for those charged with violent crimes." Had Donalds' bill been in place at that time, the D.C. Council would not have been able to act. 

In a statement, the Biden administration called the DC CRIMES Act "a counterproductive and destructive invasion of the District’s right to self-governance and would impede public safety and crime reduction." The administration statement also says the effort to strip the people of D.C. of self-governance "highlights why the District of Columbia should have statehood."