“We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences ..."

Is you can't fire people out of a society. So, you must disenfranchise them as much as possible.

Find a way to remove them and put them to some good use. Focus on minorities and the poor. Start small, just a cyclic incarceration system to capture those who deviate from an preordained path. Use the excuse of having them work to help cover the costs of detaining them. Move into civil projects; and then lease them out as laborers.

Congratulations, you have just legally reinstated slavery through the 13th amendment.

I don't mean this as any sort of endorsement of private prisons; in fact, Corrections Corp of America once tried to hire me at more than double my state salary, but I knew they wanted me as lipstick for their pig & didn't even think about it.

No matter how bad state-run prisons are, the private one are worse. For starters, what kind of person wants to be a prison guard at minimum wage? And how do you think those folks might go about supplementing their income?

....someone will pore over everything one said and dig out something, then present it out of context to construe it as negative, even if that someone's candidate AGREED with what she said at the time!

Totally disingenuous and "Fox"-like!

since it was his policy she was repeating, i assume so. cuz billary.

The OP is a lame and ridiculous comparison. Take a quote from someone in 1949 about landing on the moon and compare that to grade school kid in 1969, Would that be a fair comparison. Would Harry S Truman compare favorably with any 5th grader under those conditions?

I like that we are comparing candidates, but let's stick to contemporary issues.

The OP is a ridiculous proposition.

... of these subjects has changed? Thanks in advance.

Maybe you could look up a more recent quote to not make it such an awkward comparison. Even finding a quote by Bernie from 20 years ago would be less embarrassing than this ridiculous assertion.

How do we feel about comparing Sander's 1972 rapey "satire" with a an interview from any candidate this year? http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-disowns-1972-article-on-womens-fantasies-of-rape/?_r=0

I'm not here to do YOUR research. If Hillary has done something that would change my perception of where she is on this issue, then I'm more than happy to hear it.

So please proceed.

The OP asked to contrast and compare. I called out the age of one of the quotes.

YOU asserted that her position hasn't changed. I'm not here to do YOUR research. Your claim, your google time. Please prove your assertion that her opinion has not altered in the last two decades. Any time your have the links will be fine.

You forgot to give an opinion on Bernie's rape fantasies. Should those count for anything at all?

I don't do Hillary's handlers job for them. Or her fan club either.

OK.

My claim is one of the quotes is 2 decades old, proven by the OP.

You have refused to back your assertion. Fail on your part. The reason you failed is that I don't back any candidate at this point, and merely support comparisons on a level ground.

Feel free to compare quotes from then, or quotes from now.

You have ignored Bernie's rape essays. Wouldn't it be hypocritical to ignore them and support the OP?

EDIT: sorry, I was needlessly snarky in the original version of this post and 99Forever correctly called me out on it. I apologize, and I'll work at remaining civil here.

Hillary Clinton recently called for an end to mass incarceration, which suggests to me that she thinks the policies she advocated in the 1990s should be rethought:

http://time.com/3839892/hillary-clinton-calls-for-an-end-to-mass-incarceration/

That helps and is precisely what I was looking for.

You could have kept the snark, but I guess that was too much to expect.

But, yes, that was not a constructive tone I took, and I apologize

No harm, no foul. And I do appreciate the link.

It's more commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban.

(And Sanders is actually pretty 2nd Amendment-friendly, as you pretty much have to be in Vermont, but he stuck his neck out for this one)

interview.

Strange world we live in...

themselves with those thieving bastards for a while, and leave people who actually work for a living, as opposed to stealing and murder, alone.

Bank of America or Chase and their ilk have destroyed more lives and delivered more tragedy than all the people in Chicago's jails tonight. And they still walk free while their victims continue to sink.

Some may "oh why are you bringing up things from 1994"

The Crime Bill 1994 was not just tough on violent offenders, but it paved way for Private Prisons , and detention Centers /boot camps .

politicians cant say oops "I'm sorry " and for it go away nor should anyone let them forget

All naysayers need to take time and read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" and any democrat who wants to be the nominee must call to the end of Corrections Corporation of America

positions playing to "conservatives" to explain.

No principles, just political calculations

It seems they have both changed their minds.

Cities were clocking 1000+ homicides a year.

So they could arm Iran.

Plus as a bonus it leads to an incarceration rate that now leads the world in per capita prisoners.

the policies of increased incarceration, harsher sentences and "ending welfare as we know it" would be devastating to the black community, in particular. As these were Bill Clinton's policies one couldn't expect HRC to oppose them but she didn't have to publicly and repeatedly advocate for them.

and the fact that a major presidential candidate is talking some sense on this issue.

It's more commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban

....that's being used to discredit Hillary Clinton (Fox-News style, I might add!) has exposed Sanders as having the SAME opinion!

Sucks when that happens, doesn't it?

I eagerly look forward to my proposition being tested in the primaries.

I don't even read them. I am just telling you if you goal is to move the proverbial needle you aren't...

On this board I discuss politics, photography, science, humor, religion, music and other subjects. I've been doing this long enough to know how rare it is for posters to change their minds, including myself. On the other hand there are the lurkers, those who read but never post, they are sometimes persuadable and they also outnumber us by several times by statistics I've seen.

Like anyone I have my preferences and my viewpoint, I try not to be a complete ass about it though with varying degrees of success. My nature is kind of sarcastic and one of my failures is to stomp hard enough on that tendency.

We wouldn't be out here arguing like this if our worldviews weren't fairly well ingrained, that automatically leads to argument. Put half a dozen medieval monks together and you'd get some lovely arguments about the most ephemeral of minutia, let alone several thousand naturally argumentative souls talking about naturally flammable topics in a medium where limits are easy to exceed.

I eagerly look forward to my proposition being tested in the primaries.

But regardless, her history and her positions should be discussed. And no offense but as you have described her as your idol since you were ten, I think it's clear that no matter what her history is, you'll defend her.

I believe I said Muhammad Ali was my idol since I was ten. St. Hillary was not on my radar screen then.

But I stand by my seminal post in this thread:

All these hit pieces on Bernie Sanders are not going to bring your candidate closer to victory.

....what do you think of Ed Schultz on MSNBC?

...at the David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University on April 29. It included ending existing patterns of policing and punishment.

rather than a reactive thinker. Or a political expedient thinker, evolving solely to improve chances of gaining greater power.

Remember the cases of repeat violent criminals was driving the early 90's. Everyone now knows the problem of private prisons created by GOP legislatures...but in the 80's we had a crime problem plus too few police officers.

so....why the puff question for Sanders!

Sanders has not had the problem of letting a violent criminal go and then answering to the next victim.

Exactly what does Sanders what to do with VIOLENT criminals?? How does Sanders propose to pay for prisons? Raising taxes? Public prison may be preferred, but it's been quite difficult to gain consensus on paying for prisons instead of schools or roads or welfare. Too many people in prison for drug crimes? Of course! Is there consensus on paying for public drug treatment - even as part of health care? Hell no! Getting states to pay for drug and alcohol treatment has been very difficult.

Your post is illogical, Hillary bashing, and cherry-picking quotes. At best, it's uninformed.

Go back and ask Sanders exactly how he plans to get this stuff done. It's nice sentiment, but a pipe dream to implement.

I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, but Hillary bashing is not going to get us anywhere.

... Hillary clearly wasn't advocating for releasing non-violent, victimless prisoners, now was she?

Fact is we would have plenty of cell space for violent criminals if we freed all the pot smokers and other victimless, non-violent citizens who have been locked up. Instead she advocated for "more prisons."

If she's "evolved" on this issue, I haven't seen it reported anywhere and apparently neither have Hillary's defenders on this thread.

Hillary has openly said that she didn't agree with all of Bill's 1994 act, that sentences for drug crimes were wrong or unnecessary, and that sentencing was discriminatory by race.

This is old material for her, but she's reiterated it lately.

More prisons was not as simple as you imply. In the 80's, prisons were overcrowded and judges were declaring them cruel - so they were releasing prisoners early by court order. It caused quite a problem when released criminals committed new crimes. This was big news in the 80's and early 90's. Hillary clearly stated "violent" criminals even 20 years ago, but she was looking for proper public prisons for convicted, dangerous inmates - and overcrowded county jails with tents, cots, and mixing in the youth was unacceptable.

State and local governments were stuck with mandatory sentencing laws, but no money to build appropriate facilities. Now, the GOP figured out how to make a profit with private prisons, so they've gone the other way over 20 years - including places like Florida where most convicts are black (even for minor crimes), but they will NEVER be allowed to vote, so it's another way to get rid of Democrats!!

We did NOT have "plenty of cell space", but instead had a overcrowding problem. If you closed all those private prisons today, it would be a problem again. Also, all the progressive candidates have backed off on mandatory sentencing and jail time for non-violent crimes. Unfortunately, there has to be a safety net (drug treatment for example) that does not exist today.

See link and excerpt below...


http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1999091700

"Should some of the resources being devoted to building prisons be redirected to educational and other social spending?

In 1983, federal District Judge William Wayne Justice assumed direct control of the state prison system in Texas. Overcrowding had caused such bad conditions, Justice said, that prisoners' constitutional rights were being violated -- specifically the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Footnote 1

Texas responded to the ruling with a massive prison-building campaign. In the last two decades, the state penal system has grown nearly tenfold -- from about 15 prisons housing 18,000 inmates to 110 facilities incarcerating 150,000 inmates. Footnote 2

Many other states also went on prison-building sprees in recent years, though none grew as fast as Texas. From 1990 to 1995 alone, Texas and the other states spent almost $15 billion on prison construction, adding almost 400,000 new beds. The federal government also was busy, building 45 new prisons during the same period. Footnote 3

As in Texas, prison construction around the nation was the result of overcrowding caused by increased crime and harsher sentencing laws enacted since the 1980s.

“We've built more prisons because we've needed to take more criminals off the streets,” says Todd Gaziano, a senior fellow in legal studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “It's as simple as that.”

But liberals and others contend that it is actually not so simple. They say the prison-building boom itself has been an overly simplistic way of dealing with the complex societal problems that are associated with crime. “We've taken the easy and expedient way out by saying that we'll deal with these problems by locking people up,” says Jenni Gainsborough, communications director for the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy."

the war on drugs, mandatory three strike laws, etc. are one reason for the number in prison, but there are other theories! Simply assuming there was a conspiracy to lock people up may be wrong!

One theory is that lead in paint and gas caused the crime increase:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/prison-population-dropping-can-you-guess-why

Keith Humphreys has a nomination for the most underreported public policy story of the past year: The continuing decline in the number of Americans who are behind bars or on probation/parole. Alex Tabarrok illustrates the trend with the chart on the right.

What's going on? At the risk of sounding like a broken record today, part of the answer is probably lead. Lead emissions rose throughout the 50s and 60s, leading to a rise in crime through the 70s and 80s. Incarceration rates went up dramatically during the high-crime years, and many of the people put behind bars served long sentences. So even though crime rates started to fall in the early 90s, incarceration rates kept going up for a while as new criminals were added to a system that already had a lot of long-term residents.

Whither goes public opinion goes Hillary Clinton. So predictable.

I guess they both evolved?

Yes, she was.

The quote in the OP specifically says: "We need more prisons to keep violent offenders".

On top of that, she has supported fixing the broken justice and prison system for years.







And she just gave a speech last month about the issue of incarceration:

Maybe you have a link to Bernie saying he is for releasing violent criminals?

...the 'contrast' is that they aren't speaking about the same thing.

... for freeing up cells by releasing non-violent, victimless prisoners?

Dredging up a statement from 21 years ago where Hillary was supporting a policy of her husband's administration, a stance Bill Clinton has since altered his opinion on, is really kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Operation Gulf war 1990 ...oh only 24 years ago for that one. Oh that's right she couldn't vote on that one. Next, October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq ...oh that's only what ...13 years ago. Not quite 21 years ...right?

her own opinion considering she is such a strong woman. I certainly know few women who don't have their own opinions regardless of what their husbands think.

That's the problem with Clinton, he has altered his opinion on some of his worst legislation TOO LATE. He regrests, he says, Media Conglomeration. Too bad he didn't feel that way when it counted. What he thinks now is irrelevant, WE will have to work to try to FIX it.

We need leaders who GET IT RIGHT in the first place.

as a materialistic more that capatalistic society we produce nothing but convenience and waste .
Yikes thats scary .

End the drug war, stop locking people up for possession, problem solved. The incarceration rate will plummet, and in my opinion, so will violent crime.

Prisons should be for the dangerous, who hurt others.

Economic criminals should be punished with economic punishments, generally.

Consenting adults who do things with their own bodies that the "authorities" don't approve of shouldn't be considered criminals at all.

But comparing two quotes that are two decades apart smells of desperation to equate the two. Apples and oranges, and all that.

But more to the point: Bernie was asked two separate questions - one about for-profit prisons and one about comprehensive immigration reform - which were unfortunately fused together.

He replied by talking about "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." It's a response I might personally agree with - but it does not address the issue of what is to be done with those already in prison - especially violent repeat offenders - as opposed to addressing what might be done before-the-fact.

His comment "And yes I'm certainly in favor of comprehensive education reform" has nothing to do with the question (or two questions) posed. The question was about "comprehensive immigration reform", NOT "comprehensive education reform".

I only raise that issue because had HRC responded to such a question in exactly the same manner, she would be accused of changing the subject from "immigration" to "education" reform, in order to make a point she was more comfortable making. From that would flow accusations of avoiding the touchy topics of immigration reform and what can be done to change the prison system as it currently exists, instead of talking about what might be done in order to keep more people out of prison before they ever wind up there in the first place.

This is a perfect example of cherry-picking quotes separated by two decades and trying to pass them off as current thinking in view of the world as it is now, not as it was over twenty years ago. In addition, it demonstrates the different standards applied to the two candidates: It is perfectly all right for Sanders to respond to a question about immigration reform by opining on education reform. Had HRC done the same thing, she would be pilloried for addressing a topic the question did not even touch upon.

Now if it is used to say that since that time a candidate has stood for something then fine, but do we know that she didn't change her stance as of yet?

The cost of that is the mass, racist incarceration epidemic we have now, which Clinton recently spoke about the need of reforming.

Nations that didn't do all that Robocop and Judge Dredd style stuff, the falling crime rates were a world-wide phenomenon.

Your argument is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

And we still have a crime rate that is relatively so high compared to other industrialized nations that it's difficult to even make comparisons.

Your argument is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I would find it difficult to believe that mass incarceration had zero effect on the crime rate. I think most of the reduction was lead abatement, personally.

My point was that Clinton called for higher incarceration 20 years ago, and is now calling for lower incarceration.

Going to prison is like getting an MBA in criminal techniques and joining a frat for the connections later in life.

It also makes you an untouchable for purposes of ordinary employment, you can connect the dots.

All your best criminals have advanced degrees.

My first sentence is questionable but arguable, my second and third are simply the truth.

There are more effective ways to lower the crime rate, particularly via early social interventions (lead abatement, changing housing policy, more early education spending, etc.)

That said, Sanders, in the House, voted for the bill that Clinton was advocating for in the OP quote, commonly called the Assault Weapons Ban.

Of course it was totally off the political radar then so it was like whispering into an abyss.

Still, Sanders has been on the right side of these issues for 20-30 years, long before they got moved to the front burner.

times. It's interesting how John Kerry got slammed for changing his opinion on a couple of issues, but HRC not only doesn't get much criticism for it in the MSM, she gets praised for evolving.

It was the Assault Weaopns Ban.

Here we get really meta, because I don't like the AWB, but I respect Sanders for voting for it because he really stuck his neck out to do so (as you know better than I do, Vermont is relatively gun-friendly). So, I wouldn't vote for it in a perfect world, but I respect that Sanders did, and I respect Clinton for pushing it as First Lady. I also think, in retrospect, the incarceration epidemic was a cure worse than the disease (I suspected that would happen at the time, as I would imagine you did too).

Which then-Representative Sanders voted for.

There are rules the guards give you and rules prisoners give you and those are enforced with beat-downs "checks" usually handled by self-segregated gang leader but the overall prison logic that you have to learn to survive but you learn to live by this code I've noticed more often than not people out of prison show respect unless they're perceived as weak or a coward then sthey don't deserve it or -- "might is right". Some of the 3 or 4 yards -- the maximum security ones are really off the hook. I only did 2 weeks in jail and saw someone jumped in the showers -- the only part of the guards change that was walled off out of their view but you aren't going to tell the guards or the next time might be you or me.

Aside from countless things that I find counterproductive -- private prison labor wages that they bill so many random things you're paying off -- they lobby Congress for tougher & longer sentences it isn't about reformation or punishment, just more low-cost labor they can pay pennies a hour. But when they get out they have a felony so no housing, very difficult to get a job or anything more than a laborer but sometimes you have friends -- an older man told me probably about a year ago "if I could do everything in life over again the one thing I'd make sure is to never get a felony" -- knew him from homeless survives, worked hard -- far more productive than most people I know but couldn't find housing or a job that was anything more than tempory or low wages which IMO were by the far the most exhausting & difficult jobs. I broke my hand in Bar Louie before it was Bar Louie.

This is a topic for a whole 'nother thread, but until you have been part of the system in some way, you just don't get it. And the most profound realization for me is how many people incarcerated are in fact innocent. Again, until you have directly experienced the power of a prosecutor, you really can't grasp what it is like...it is a childlike level of helplessness.

I could go on, but, not really the right place.