General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Clinton legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison system
JEFF STEIN, APR 13, 2015
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the_clinton_dynastys_horrific_legacy_how_tough_on_crime_politics_built_the_worlds_largest_prison/
The Clinton dynastys horrific legacy: How tough-on-crime politics built the worlds largest prison system
Over the past two decades, the Clintons' version of the "War on Drugs" has inflicted needless suffering on millions
Hillary Clinton wants to run for president as an economic populist, as a humane progressive interested in bolstering the fortunes of poor and middle class Americans. But before liberals enthusiastically sign up for Team Hillary, they should remember this: In the late 1990s, Bill Clinton played in instrumental role in creating the worlds largest prison system one that has devastated our inner cities, made a mockery of American idealism abroad, and continues to inflict needless suffering on millions of people. And he did it with his wifes support.
...
The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clintons version of the War on Drugs is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clintons tenure or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined, states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrats term, was 42 per 100,000 more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagans term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bushs term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI.
...
There is also very strong evidence that these policies contributed to the immiseration of vast numbers of black (and also white) Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, according to the well-known conclusions of journalists, academics and other criminal justice experts. Federal funding for public housing fell by $17 billion (a 61 percent reduction) under Bill Clintons tenure; federal funding for corrections rose by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to Michelle Alexanders seminal work, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The federal governments new priorities redirected nearly $1 billion in state spending for higher education to prison construction. Clinton put a permanent eligibility ban for welfare or food stamps on anyone convicted of a felony drug offense (including marijuana possession). He prohibited drug felons from public housing. Any liberal arts grad with an HBO account can tell you the consequences for poor, black American cities like Baltimore. As Alexander writes, More than any other president, [Clinton] created the current racial undercaste.
While its true that it was Bill who, as president, was ultimately responsible for these decision, Hillary was nonetheless a famously involved First Lady on political matters a reputation shes shown willingness to capitalize on in her new campaign. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal report, Hillary has signaled she would use the 1990s as a selling point if she jumps in the race, making the case that, as first lady, she was part of an era that found solutions to the same sorts of political difficulties that bedevil present-day Washington. That legacy includes Bill Clintons War on Drugs, whether you like it or not.
As recently noted by Reason.com, Hillary actively lobbied for the aforementioned criminal justice reforms as First Lady and, as a New York senator, voted to expand grants that dramatically scaled up police involvement in anti-terror and homeland security efforts. She also said things like this, in support of a crime bill that would impose draconian new sentencing provisions [three strikes]:
We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and youre out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thanks Bill!!! I'll never forgive youuuuu!!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Not words or campaign videos. This is policy that effects all people of color and most especially African American males. Now we have the flip flop that Clinton is speaking out on mass incarceration. Lest we forget, it was a Democrat who chose to expand the prison industry to the largest in the world in order to pander for votes from fearful whites. That "tough on crime" talk has cost us dearly.
Actions, not optics.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When I saw him speaking about it I was left cold. He was so removed from the problem, like those people were just bad stats. I know that they did it to pander for votes, and sadly it only got them black votes. We need to demand better from politicians if they want our votes.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Both their record and their words. A politician cannot escape the consequences of their votes. We have every right to demand honesty.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Http://ontheissues.org
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Well someone asked him the question yesterday.
SANDERS: She's not talking about me so be clear (laughter and applause from audience)
QUESTION: then he's voting against his own comprehensive immigration reform bill. I would like to know would you help us shut down the for-profit prisons, would you you shift money away from detaining people to other more humane methods, immigration judges for examples [ ] and would you work for comprehensive immigration reform?
SANDERS: The answer is, yes, yes ,yes. Clearly one of the crises we face in our nation is that we have more people behind bars than any other country on earth [ ] China is a nation that is 3 or 4 times larger than us population wise, it is an authoritarian country Communist country, and we have far more people behind bars than does China. And what we do in our jails is we run a great educational system, we education people how to be even better criminals. So it seems to me that rather than spending huge amounts of money on jails and on private corporations who are incentivized to keep people in jail, it might make a lot more sense to spend money on job training and education so that people do not end up in jail in the first place. And yes I'm certainly in favor of comprehensive education reform.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I hope the other candidates fall in line.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I want that as a differentiation.
I don't want a candidate who has to evolve, pay lip service, fall in line, etc. I want the candidate who lives and breathes it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I assured quite a few doubters over the last few days that Sanders would begin to address these types of issues with depth and substance.
I am glad to see I was right. Good for him!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)So when he is talking about education, he is using the argument that we should educate rather than lock someone up. Not just educating white males. Phew!
TM99
(8,352 posts)His policies will support everyone.
PRB
(139 posts)but I would still vote for him today if he ran. The drug war has been a catastrophe, but there are a lot of rapists, murderers, etc. in jail. The streets are safer today. Crime is down. Maybe having certain people in jail is a good thing. People are waking up to things like domestic abuse and horrible inner city violence.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But non violent offenders should be rehabilitated and trained and educated to reenter society and work to provide for their children, to prevent another generation of inmates.
We have too many nonviolent drug offenders sitting in jail doing nothing when they could be working and providing for those inner city kids.
PRB
(139 posts)Clinton was for putting weed smokers in jail. He smoke weed himself. It's easy to bash him after he left office. The fact is that crime has been going down for decades. Clinton was a no nonsense moderate who got some things done. Like I say, I don't like some of the things he did and he buckled too much on some things, but having crime go down is a big plus. I would vote for him all over again. Twice in fact.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)There were manditory minimums for various offenses. It was used against drug offenders to the extent that now we have 25% of the worlds prisoners. Three strikes becames used for things such as stealing a slice of pizza. Whatever he intended, it is what it is. This is where that brought us. Would you like some links to reports of the effects of the clinton crime bill other than the one in the op? I can find them for you.
I would not vote for those policies today. We need to rehabilitate our offenders, not warehouse them for profit. With the money we spend on prisons and paying fees for empty cells, we could put many offenders through trade school and have them pay taxes instead of getting back out, uneducated and better at crime. They need to be integrated into society.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)PRB
(139 posts)Actually first hand sources. I think you said it right. Clinton never intended this. I don't agree that someone smoking weed should be locked up, let alone warehoused for fun and profit of private companies. I would however, look at all of the drug offenders and distinguish between them. Some of them are very violent.
I agree wholeheartedly with rehab. I also think you need to strike a balance. Rehab people, but don't do it at the expense of people's safety. We are safer today because we did address crime. I am glad I can walk outside and not be fearful.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)http://disinfo.com/2013/04/how-a-man-was-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-stealing-a-pair-of-socks/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/opinion/vanita-gupta-marijuana-life-sentence/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/20/duncancampbell
PRB
(139 posts)These are really just news articles, but okay, if that is what you have. And I never heard of "disinfo" as a source. Honestly, it sounds like some ancap right wing shit.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That might be difficult. They got life and you don't get a tv studio in jail. If you explain what you need I can find it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the war on drugs policies enacted during the Clinton administration. You are right,. they are baffling since crime stats peaked in 1992, but I digress.
You might want to read more into John Byrnes DOJ grants, and how they tie to the war on drugs and the clinton administration. While you are at it, civil forfeiture is also a wonderful thing to get familiar with. Also the tough three strikes which was not just a California idea, but a federal one. As well as toughening sentencing standards in general for drug offenses.
Then perhaps you might want to take a looksie at welfare reform.
Or if you want to save some time, read the people who already did quite a bit of that work... like Michelle Alexander and "the New Jim Crow."
PRB
(139 posts)If crime went down, then that is a good thing. How can you argue with that? You're talking about the corruption and other items. If those grants mean locking up people forever for stealing pizza, then that is wrong. That should not apply to three strikes, but I can't see somebody getting more than two strikes for the same crazy offense. What about me? Should I have to be fearful to walk outside my house because someone keeps laughing at the system, getting away with the same things? I also don't see your connection to welfare and Jim Crow, but maybe you are talking about someone else.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in both California and the Federal Courts, for stealing pizza, if that was your third strike, you are out and away for life.
And as I said, if you want to save a lot of time... these are two extremely good reads on the subject
The New Jim Crow
And Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop
Oh and my stats came straight from ARJIS, and the FBI
PRB
(139 posts)Is that the norm or the exception to the rule? Thanks for the stats, too, but I made that point that crime went down. People are safer today than ever before.
BTW, I am not reading anything from the nutjob Balko. He's a libertarian with an agenda.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the pizza thing is real
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and one that should never be forgotten.
Thanks, BrotherIvan!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Let's do it.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bernie can more than hold his own.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But no actual refutations. I shall wait patiently.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That could take a while.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Looking forward to it.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I vowed right that moment to never support him or any among his family.
Despicable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
That his wife would run on a crime and punishment plank doesn't surprise me.
Neither does it surprise me that, depending upon her audience, she would waffle on it.
"We don't know who this candidate is, and we can't afford to find out."
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But her record and her actual words should be up for discussion.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)On a Democratic website?
Does 'anyone but' include Bush, Santorum, Fiorina, Trump, etc.? 'Cause you are sure helping them!
Does this mean all "Democratic" primary candidates are ready for the Big Leagues now? If this is how we support "our" candidate?
Just something to think about...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)With stats and facts and QUOTES from the candidate is a hit piece? Is there ANYTHING about her record that we're allowed to discuss?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)sounds like stats and facts and quotes?
There may be stats and facts, but they are used in a context to support a hit! That's what those first 4 words tell you. That's why this is posted here!
If it's all a justification to oppose a Democratic candidate, then anything goes, right?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The repeal of Glass-Steagall
Clinton ideas.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The article makes the argument that the polices that both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported have led to the largest prison system in the world with mass incarceration of African Americans. Direct result of POLICY. And yes, it is horrific. Actions have consequences.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)right?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Agree or disagree?
But just the ones that make her look good. Any mention or comparison in which casts her in anything but a glowing light ist verboten.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and take my word on it, I do a lot of it.
In fact, I cannot wait for actual policy documents from all 10 declared clowns, regardless of party. (And the rest that are still to declare) I intend to make my decision on actual, real policy statements, not talking points
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)While its true that it was Bill who, as president, was ultimately responsible for these decision, Hillary was nonetheless a famously involved First Lady on political matters a reputation shes shown willingness to capitalize on in her new campaign. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal report, Hillary has signaled she would use the 1990s as a selling point if she jumps in the race, making the case that, as first lady, she was part of an era that found solutions to the same sorts of political difficulties that bedevil present-day Washington. That legacy includes Bill Clintons War on Drugs, whether you like it or not.
As recently noted by Reason.com, Hillary actively lobbied for the aforementioned criminal justice reforms as First Lady and, as a New York senator, voted to expand grants that dramatically scaled up police involvement in anti-terror and homeland security efforts. She also said things like this, in support of a crime bill that would impose draconian new sentencing provisions :
spanone
(135,874 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)With a quote from the candidate. The quote is in favor of the "three strikes law".
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)You think the smears and baseless lies can't get any worse, and then this shows up...amazing...tell me again where I can find a democratic site...thanks.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Really digging this time, huh.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So it's a legitimate question.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Same stand on many Issues since both are Democrats, she will be serving and will be by aking the oath.
On the other hand are you willing to bring Bernie's wife's record into the race also?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Refers back to her time during the Bill Clinton administration.
If she is taking cues and experience from his time in office, she is linked to his administration.
That's fine, I happen to think on many matters Bill Clinton was a good president. But his escalation of the drug war is undeniable.
Of course Hillary could set a tone distinct from her husband's record, but it would require taking clear stands on things like for-profit prisons or whether she, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, supports arresting sick people for pot smoking.
As long as she keeps people guessing on what her actual positions are, they will fill in the gaps with the record, and her stated - again, by her, as part of her resume and qualifications for POTUS- association with her husband's administration is part of the record.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)As far as marijuana goes it will probably be a non issue soon so you can probably put this to rest also. It has too many occasions where it is helpful to those in need. If it could be reclassified as a class two instead of the class one there is research which could be done. Currently I don't see a lot of bills introduced into Congress to even get this reclassified.
I am sure Hillary was on top of current events during Bill's administration. The IWR was to have all avenues covered before any action was taken and you are a smart person and you know Bush had the inspectors pulled before the inspection was complete. The invasion in Iraq belongs squarely on the Bush Administration. To put the "vote" as a reason for the invasion is relieving the Bush administration of their bad decision, ergo, leave it on Bush where it should be.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But here's a news flash: 4 states have already voted to fully legalize. It's quite likely that more states will be following in 2016, including California, with 34 Million people.
If that isn't enough, Colorado, with a well-established and working system for state-regulated legal marijuana, is very likely to be a crucial electoral swing state again.
A majority of Americans now favor legalization. Millennials- a larger generation than the boomers, with new members reaching voting age every day- DO consider it an important issue.
Ignoring it won't make it go away.
As for the IWR vote, it's facile to expect that it won't be an issue. It's no longer a dealbreaker for me, but it needs to be addressed.
Lastly, I haven't decided who I'm going to support in the primaries, but none of this is about me "not liking" Hillary Clinton. I've seen her speak publicly several times, starting with the Daley Center in Chicago in 1992, last time was the March for Womens Lives in DC in 2004. I like Hillary Clinton. But I still want Hillary Clinton to run a campaign where she takes bold decisive stands even on potentially contentious or controversial issues, i.e. leadership.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Does need to be changed from a class one to a class two to allow medical research. In fact I would live to see some action on this immediately, it could be passed and Obama would sign it. As you say over fifty percent is on favor of this. Let's start writing our congressional members about this, why are they allowing people to suffer when there is relief available.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I happen to live in a state that's ahead of the curve on it; our state Dem. party supports full legalization, as does our Jr. Senator-- but, agreed on all counts.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but I know how to dig
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:samdt47:
She voted for this jewell.
And this article from the guardian... in the right hands (no not Issa), could give Opp Research a lot of meat.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/26/mexico-hillary-clinton-drugs-weapons
I can keep going, but you get the point. Her record is not precisely stellar on some issues, crime and the war on drugs are two issues that it is not. She's changing her views, though she is for drug legalization one day, and against it the next. So I expect her to ahem "evolve" fully now that the nation is doing that.
But there are multiple reasons why policy is NOT the partisan shtick.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a telling contrast. Again.
Bernie Sanders Pledges To End No Child Left Behind, Shut Down For-Profit Prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026747534
The Clinton legacy: How tough-on-crime politics built the worlds largest prison system
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026747166
BERNIE SANDERS 2016
NO MORE CORPORATE PREDATORS IN DEMOCRAT SUITS.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)in the Prison Indistrial Complex.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like her buddy Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Several states have legalized marijuana. More are likely to follow. Throwing people in prison for pot smoking is no longer a defensible position.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)(and the tie to the Paul campaign) And how both parties have pushed really bad legislation. In the bigger picture this is about the USPA as well.
I always find it fascinating that we have some media talking of this as well. Of course they are talking of Ron Paul (The other small donor guy).
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Good to know.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Giant joke or a kryptonite question to be avoided.
Fuck, even several GOP candidates have already said they will be hands off with states that have legalized... Im not sure why she cant do that much.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)There's the answer.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)since stories with her ever shifting change in opinion are there to be found
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)http://time.com/3839892/hillary-clinton-calls-for-an-end-to-mass-incarceration/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I expect this to hunt her with young POC, who know better, since they are living the consequences.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But the beltway conventional wisdom poobahs, still running their 1990s "tough on crime/soccer mom/values voter" script, haven't got the memo.
Shit, it's taken long enough to realize that they can safely come out from behind the couch and support doing the right thing on LGBT marriage (heaven forfend they should have actually LED 10 years ago, before the polling made it tenable)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But since Clinton's "base" that she pivoted back to in 2008 is working class whites and mothers, who are the largest group for tough on crime, I'm not sure she's going to go all in. It will depend on who she is running against.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)campaign. I remember one of the things she told me she really appreciated about the Dean campaign was that his positions weren't poll driven, unlike the Gore campaign which always needed to look at polls in order to figure out which position to take.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)And it is a losing strategy. Hillary has strengths that she could run on, foreign policy being a big one. Why isn't she? Why is she trying to run as the ultimate combination of Harriet Tubman and Elizabeth Warren? So bizzare.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)his policies were a disaster for this country and continue to bite us in the butt.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Whatever...
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's a long wait for what doesn't exist.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)or read it and hide .
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The Real Clinton Legacy
Progress For America's Families and Communities in the Fight Against Crime
Crime Rate Drops Every Year: The overall crime rate has dropped for 8 years in a row the longest continuous drop on record and is now at a 26 year low.
Violent Crime Down Every Year: The violent crime rate is at its lowest level in over two decades and is 30 percent lower than it was in 1992. In 1999, the homicide rate dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The murder rate has dropped more than 38 percent since 1992.
Gun Crime Rate Drops Dramatically: Since 1993, the gun-related crime rate has declined by more than 40 percent. The number of juvenile gun offenders peaked in 1993, and has dropped 57 percent since then.
School Crime Rate Down: The school crime rate the number of thefts or violent crimes committed at schools has decreased from 155 per 1,000 students in 1993 to 101 per 1,000 students in 1998. That's a drop of nearly 35 percent.
Domestic Violence Declines: The number of women experiencing violence at the hands of an intimate partner declined 21 percent from 1993 to 1998.
Teen Drug Use Drops: Teen drug use has turned the corner, dropping for the third year in a row. Youth marijuana use has dropped over 25 percent.
Record Levels of Federal Drug Seizures: Federal drug seizures have increased to record high levels since 1993, including the highest level of federal cocaine seizures ever a 10 percent increase over 1992 levels. In 1999, federal agents seized more than three times the amount of marijuana than was seized in 1992.
Cocaine Supply Decreases: Coca leaf eradication in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru increased by more than five times between 1992 and 1998. The amount of cocaine available for consumption in the United States has dropped by more than 30 percent since 1992.
Drug-Related Murders Cut in Half: The drug related murder rate has been cut almost in half since 1992. Drug related murders are now at their lowest level in over a decade.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And things would be perfect, yes?
Cha
(297,655 posts)going to want to see that, yallerdawg!
Thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Take your pick.