Trailing in the polls, Republican U.S. Senate nominee Mehmet Oz has become more aggressive, and more personal, in attacking his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman. For the most part, Oz has hit hard but fair. It is legitimate to raise questions about Fetterman’s health and call him out for avoiding debates. Even mocking Fetterman’s privileged background and blue-collar image is fair game, at least by the subterranean standards of political campaigns.
But in twisting and misrepresenting Fetterman’s views and statements on the criminal justice system, Oz has sunk to fearmongering, tactics reminiscent of the notorious Willie Horton ads during the 1988 presidential election. In doing so, Oz is making an honest debate on this crucial issue practically impossible. His campaign of fear has become downright silly, or desperate, in launching a farcical “Inmates for Fetterman” coalition promoting his opponent’s “tireless work releasing violent criminals back into Pennsylvania’s communities.”
The lies and misleading half-truths floated by the Oz campaign include assertions that Fetterman seeks to eliminate life sentences for murderers and release one-third of Pennsylvania’s roughly 37,000 state prisoners.
Here’s the real deal:
Fetterman did not say he wanted to eliminate life sentences for murderers. He proposed eliminating mandatory life sentences for people convicted of second-degree murder, which most states have already done. Second-degree murder covers cases in which an offender did not pull the trigger or directly cause the death of another person but in some way participated in a crime in which someone died.
People convicted of such crimes are often in their 20s or even younger. Voters should decide whether it is unreasonable for the law to give judges the discretion to give some of those people at least a chance at parole after serving lengthy prison sentences — if the parole board decided they no longer threatened public safety.
To eliminate all opportunities for second chances is inhumane, unreasonable and extremely costly.
Nor did Fetterman advocate releasing a third of Pennsylvania’s 37,000 prisoners.
In a 2020 tweet, Fetterman stated former Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel said Pennsylvania could reduce its prison population by one-third without compromising public safety.
In fact, most criminal justice experts and corrections administrators agree.
Wetzel did not advocate opening the prison doors and letting 12,000 dangerous people out, willy-nilly, as the Oz campaign suggests. He was pointing out that, if the criminal justice system worked properly, the prison population could drop, safely, by one-third or more.
That would mean, among other things, sending dangerous people to prison and supervising and treating nonviolent offenders in the community at a fraction of the $42,000 a year it costs to incarcerate each prisoner. That’s not releasing one-third of the prison population, which Fetterman’s campaign has said he doesn’t support.
Four decades ago, the state prison population was two-thirds — not one-third — smaller, before policy changes drove it up. Between 1983 and 2018, the state prison population in Pennsylvania nearly tripled, as it did nationwide, with no demonstrable effect on crime.
Pennsylvania spends $2 billion a year on prisons. Some of that money could go toward education or other programs that make communities safer.
The state needs an honest debate on criminal justice and the policies that led to mass incarceration and made the United States the world’s leading incarcerator.
Fetterman’s criminal justice policies might not be the right ones, but he deserves the chance to defend them. But he can only do so if they are presented truthfully.
And Oz should do more than smear his opponent, distort his record and campaign on fear.
He should propose his own criminal justice agenda. If he does no more than defend the status quo, he needs to explain how Pennsylvania will continue to pay for it.
Sadly, campaigning on fear often works with voters, and the Oz campaign knows it. Before continuing, however, Oz should ask himself whether he wants to replace reason with fear in becoming a politician who will say anything to get elected.
———
