Editorial: Anti-crime tactic must be reasonable

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 | 8:49 a.m.

A group of downtown Las Vegas business people and residents recently formed an anti-crime organization and named it DAM, for Downtown Advocates Monitoring of Justice Systems. The members have put pressure on the Las Vegas City Council, Municipal Court judges and city prosecutors to make repeat offenders pay a little more dearly for their crimes. They came together as a group because they earn their living downtown, or live there, and have had their fill of street crime that reduces the profitability of their businesses and lowers the quality of their personal lives.

We admire citizens who, in lawful ways, work to make their communities safer and more attractive. In our view, DAM is providing a public service not just for those who work and live downtown, but also for those who enjoy patronizing the downtown attractions -- or would if they felt safe. The City Council's vision for downtown includes a performing arts center, an academic medical center and far greater shopping and housing opportunities -- all complemented with beautiful landscaping, inviting streets and open spaces for social activities.

It's frustrating to know that this vision will likely never come to pass as long as prostitutes are darting in and out of traffic soliciting business and as long as drug dealers and their suppliers and customers are operating openly and confidently, as if downtown belonged to them. Such criminals foster a seedy aura, one in which assaults, robberies and assorted other violence occurs naturally.

DAM was founded because too many street criminals were enjoying the revolving-door syndrome, in which an arrest generally meant a few days of inconvenience before they were back on the street. With the group's members demanding action, the city's prosecutors responded by seeking the harshest penalty allowed for offenses committed by people who have numerous prior convictions for serious crimes. Even if a repeat offender's offense is simply jaywalking or possession of drug paraphernalia, prosecutors are now seeking the full penalty of six months in jail and the judges in many cases are imposing them.

All of this is to the good, in our view, as long as reason prevails. Sending a person with a string of drug, assault or prostitution offenses to jail for jaywalking is not unjust. It's a message to that person that society's patience is at an end, that he's used up all of his second chances. The federal government used a similar tactic in going after murderous mobsters -- for income tax evasion. However, sending someone, a homeless person for example, to jail for jaywalking, when his past offenses have never been more serious than that, would be wrong.

We were impressed when leaders of DAM issued a statement this week, saying they never intended their efforts to be used against harmless homeless people. They will have our support as long as they work as hard against misuse of their initiative as they do in supporting its true intent.