Memorial Drive in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is typically a picturesque landscape. Yet on the afternoon of May 11, that serenity was shattered when 46-year-old Tyler Brown opened fire on passing vehicles. By the time a state trooper and an armed civilian exchanged gunfire with Brown, ending the rampage, two people had been critically injured.
I know these streets intimately. I attended college and law school in neighboring Boston and worked at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, located in the immediate vicinity of where this harrowing scene unfolded. I’ve strolled that stretch of the Charles River waterfront countless times. While I remained free to navigate those streets with ease, Tyler Brown should not have been.
As a libertarian, my guiding principle is that the government ought to leave peaceful people to their own devices. But my perspective on the proper role of the criminal justice system often places me at odds with the prevailing narratives of both the right and the left.
The right’s tough on “crime” narrative collapses the distinction between violent crime and a government that seeks to enforce its own version of morality through heavy-handed policing. When policing is concentrated in specific zip codes, the resulting criminal history of a resident may reflect the frequency of law enforcement contact rather than a unique propensity for violence. This creates a feedback loop where past contact justifies future surveillance, regardless of the severity of the underlying conduct.
Conversely, some on the left advocate for defunding the police and abolishing prisons. They subscribe to the utopian assumption that all societal ills can be cured through social welfare spending—failing to acknowledge that some individuals pose an existential danger to others.
Ultimately, both frameworks struggle to address the nuance of human behavior. The former creates an expansive police state while the latter compromises community safety.
My view is different. As a dedicated advocate for criminal justice reform, I believe that the primary role of the criminal justice system should be to protect the public from dangerous individuals. Accordingly, we must dramatically reduce the size and scope of the criminal code to ensure the criminal justice system serves as a measure of last resort rather than a primary tool for managing societal ills. By narrowing this focus, we can significantly shrink the prison population.
If an adult chooses to consume drugs, for example, the state has no business intervening. However, if someone is using in public and leaves needles behind in a public park where they pose a risk to kids or dogs, the state then has an obligation to step in.
Tyler Brown’s presence on Memorial Drive was a direct result of the system’s failure to adhere to this principle. In 2021, Brown pleaded guilty to eight counts, including armed assault with intent to murder and discharging a firearm at Boston Police officers in the city’s South End.
Despite the gravity of these crimes, the sentencing reflected a total lack of concern for community safety. The District Attorney requested 10 to 12 years—a recommendation that was arguably insufficient for someone willing to fire at human beings. The judge went even further, however, sentencing Brown to only 5 to 6 years at a time when Brown was already on probation for assault and battery with a knife and witness intimidation.
Sentencing an individual who shot at police officers to such a short stint behind bars represents a fundamental failure of the state’s duty to protect the public. Such leniency not only endangers the community but also provides ammunition to those advocating for the retention of an overreaching and bloated criminal code.
This phenomenon isn’t isolated to Massachusetts. Just steps from my Washington, DC, apartment, Marvin Urquhart, a beloved security guard at Wunder Garten, was brutally stabbed to death in the early morning hours of May 2. The suspect, 50-year-old Cardoza Sims, had previously pleaded guilty to murder. In both cases, the system treated a violent crime as something that could be negotiated away, rather than a clear signal that the individual was too dangerous to remain in society.
Serious reform requires a clear distinction. We must ensure that those who prove themselves a lethal threat are incapacitated for as long as necessary to protect the public. While declining crime statistics are often celebrated, they offer little consolation to the family of murder victims like Marvin Urquhart. The criminal justice system ought to concern itself with guaranteeing that people actually feel safe in their neighborhoods.
