You need to do what many Western European nations have been doing for years now: build a huge commission of experts (as broad as possible with as many voices as possible, but all not too political, the more scientists – criminologists, sociologists, … – the better) and let them decide on it. That defers responsibility, but also prevents easy attacks. It shields politicians.
Some find this disgusting and antithetical to democracy, but I’m actually quite ok with it. The politicians only set the broad guidelines and figure out how to pay for it.
Of course there are controversies and of course it is occasionally very possible to score political points with “hang them higher” rhetorics, but not all that often.
All’s not perfect, too, obviously, but at least it’s a bit better.
You may not have noticed, but modern America has a deep-seated disdain of "experts", particularly when it comes to public policy.
This isn't accidental.
Doesn't that pretty much describe this, which was the trigger for the article?
...a two-year, 444-page study prepared by the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Justice Department and others.
Between easy fear-mongering ("Do you want criminals on the street?", "Representative Smith let that murder out, he could have prevented this", "Senator Bill is soft on crime!") and the huge number of jobs who depend on this nonsense (prisons, police, lawyers, bail bonds, half-way houses) I fear this will never be undone.