The Ones We Fear and the Ones We’re Mad At: A Policing Perspective on Justice Reform

After decades in law enforcement, I’ve learned that not all people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are viewed the same way. Some are the people we fear: violent predators, serial offenders, and those whose crimes shake our communities to their core. Others are the people we’re mad at: the ones whose actions frustrate us, like nonviolent offenders battling substance dependency, poverty, or mental illness.

Understanding this difference — between those we fear and those we’re mad at — is one of the most important distinctions we can make if we want a more effective, fair, and compassionate justice system. Too often, we lump everyone together, reacting emotionally instead of strategically. When we do that, we waste resources, deepen inequities, and miss opportunities to prevent crime in the first place.

The Ones We Fear

Let’s start with the people we fear. These are the offenders who make headlines — serial killers, violent abusers, rapists, and those who commit acts so heinous that they leave a permanent mark on victims, families, and entire communities. These individuals represent the extreme end of criminal behavior, and our fear of them is both rational and justified.

When you’ve stood in a crime scene where life has been taken or sat with the family of a victim whose loved one was senselessly murdered, you understand why the public demands strong responses. Law enforcement officers dedicate their lives to finding and stopping these individuals because their behavior poses a genuine threat to safety. They are unpredictable, some are remorseless, and sometimes beyond rehabilitation.

Our response to this group should be firm, consistent, and focused on public safety. That means maintaining investigative resources, specialized training, and forensic tools needed to apprehend and prosecute violent offenders. It also means ensuring that those who are truly dangerous are securely confined to prevent further harm.

But here’s the key: the people we fear make up a smaller percentage of those who are arrested every year. In my years in law enforcement, I saw countless arrests. The majority did not involve truly violent, predatory individuals.

The Ones We’re Mad At

Then there are the people we’re mad at. These are the individuals whose crimes frustrate us — not because we fear them, but because their actions cause disorder, cost money, or offend our sense of responsibility. They might be arrested for petty theft, drug possession, trespassing, or repeated probation violations. They’re not “scary,” but they are annoying to the system.

Many of these individuals are battling deeper issues: substance dependency, untreated mental illness, homelessness, or generational poverty. Some grew up in environments where trauma was constant — and where survival meant making choices that eventually drew police attention. Others simply made mistakes that spiraled out of control.

When we’re mad at someone, our instinct is to punish — to “teach them a lesson.” But anger-driven policies rarely work. They often lead to what we call the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system. A person gets arrested for a minor offense, spends time in jail, loses their job or housing, and then returns to the same environment that led to their arrest in the first place.

This cycle doesn’t make communities safer. It simply shifts the problem from one part of society to another — from the streets to the jails, and back again.

How Fear and Anger Shape Policy

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Both are natural human responses, but they require different kinds of leadership.

When we respond to fear, often we tighten laws, increase penalties, and expand incarceration. When we respond to anger, our tendency is to push for “tough on crime” measures, even when those measures don’t align with the actual threat level. The result is a justice system that sometimes treats the “mad-at” people as harshly as the “afraid-of” ones.

The potential exists to end up with nonviolent offenders serving long sentences, or people with substance use disorders being incarcerated and not getting treatment even while in jail. It’s also how resources get stretched thin — officers spend time handling low-level offenses when they could be focusing on preventing and solving serious crimes.

A Smarter, More Balanced Approach

The solution isn’t to go easy on crime — it’s to be smart about it. The goal of law enforcement should always be public safety, but that safety can’t come from fear or frustration alone. It has to come from understanding.

We should reserve our harshest penalties and most secure facilities for those who are truly dangerous — the ones we fear. For others, our approach should be different. That means investing in diversion programs, treatment courts, and reentry services that address root causes.

Drug treatment courts, for example, have shown tremendous success in reducing recidivism. Instead of punishing substance dependency, they help people overcome it. Mental health courts and crisis intervention teams do the same for those struggling with psychiatric issues. These are not “soft on crime” approaches — they’re strategic. They reduce future offenses, save taxpayer money, and free up police resources to focus on violent crime.

I’ve also seen the power of partnerships between law enforcement and community organizations. When police departments work with housing agencies, nonprofits, and faith-based groups, they can connect people to services that help them stabilize their lives. A person who has housing, treatment, and a job is far less likely to end up back in the system.

Changing How We See People

One of the biggest challenges in law enforcement — and society in general — is learning to see people beyond their worst moments. When we see mugshots and crime statistics, it’s easy to forget that behind every arrest is a person with a story.

That doesn’t mean we excuse harmful behavior. Accountability is essential. But accountability can take many forms — it doesn’t always have to mean incarceration.

If someone is dangerous, our duty is to protect the public. But if someone is struggling, our duty is to help them find a way out of that struggle. The community is a big beneficiary. The justice system should be about both safety and restoration. We can protect our communities and help people change. Those goals are not mutually exclusive.

Moving Forward: From Emotion to Evidence

The next step for policing and criminal justice reform is to shift from emotional reactions to evidence-based strategies. We need to ask hard questions, such as:

• Are we spending our resources on the people who pose the greatest threat?
• Are we criminalizing social problems that could be addressed more effectively outside the justice system?
• Are our policies making communities safer, or just busier?

The answers to these questions can guide a more balanced system — one that reserves fear for the truly dangerous and replaces anger with problem-solving for the rest.

Conclusion

As a former police chief, I know firsthand that every arrest involves choices — not just by the person being arrested, but by the system responding to them. We must choose whether to act out of fear, anger, or wisdom.

The ones we fear deserve swift and strong justice because they threaten lives. The ones we’re mad at deserve structured accountability that leads to rehabilitation. When we learn to tell the difference, we make better use of our officers, our courts, and our compassion.

In the end, true public safety isn’t achieved by punishing everyone the same way. It’s achieved by understanding who we fear, who we’re mad at, and how best to respond to each — with fairness, strategy, and humanity.