HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » “We need more police, we ...

Sat May 30, 2015, 05:13 AM

 

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

“We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-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.” ~ Hillary Clinton, August 10, 1994


Source: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/File/three%20strikes%20law_presidential.pdf


QUESTION:. 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.




Compare and contrast.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/bernie-sanders-pledges-end-no-child-left-behind-shut-down-profit-prisons

95 replies, 5639 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences ..." (Original post)
Scuba May 2015 OP
Half-Century Man May 2015 #1
HereSince1628 May 2015 #22
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #26
George II May 2015 #95
Thor_MN May 2015 #2
Logical May 2015 #10
mopinko May 2015 #13
Thor_MN May 2015 #32
Logical May 2015 #36
Thor_MN May 2015 #40
99Forever May 2015 #14
Thor_MN May 2015 #28
99Forever May 2015 #38
Thor_MN May 2015 #41
99Forever May 2015 #43
Thor_MN May 2015 #45
99Forever May 2015 #46
Thor_MN May 2015 #48
Recursion May 2015 #62
99Forever May 2015 #66
Recursion May 2015 #67
99Forever May 2015 #71
Recursion May 2015 #77
George II May 2015 #87
morningfog May 2015 #30
Thor_MN May 2015 #33
Recursion May 2015 #81
Recursion May 2015 #75
jtuck004 May 2015 #3
CTBlueboy May 2015 #4
cyberswede May 2015 #20
marble falls May 2015 #5
George II May 2015 #91
Doctor_J May 2015 #6
Recursion May 2015 #80
George II May 2015 #92
seabeyond May 2015 #7
JaneyVee May 2015 #8
hootinholler May 2015 #12
cali May 2015 #69
daleanime May 2015 #9
George II May 2015 #16
Recursion May 2015 #82
George II May 2015 #90
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #11
Fumesucker May 2015 #42
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #44
Fumesucker May 2015 #47
L0oniX May 2015 #54
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #64
cali May 2015 #72
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #76
L0oniX May 2015 #88
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #89
George II May 2015 #15
Scuba May 2015 #17
George II May 2015 #25
morningfog May 2015 #31
Sancho May 2015 #18
Scuba May 2015 #24
Sancho May 2015 #27
TheKentuckian May 2015 #34
Sancho May 2015 #35
cali May 2015 #74
Recursion May 2015 #86
NYC Liberal May 2015 #57
L0oniX May 2015 #56
bigtree May 2015 #19
Scuba May 2015 #23
MohRokTah May 2015 #21
L0oniX May 2015 #55
sabrina 1 May 2015 #60
olddots May 2015 #29
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #37
NaturalHigh May 2015 #39
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #50
NaturalHigh May 2015 #51
bravenak May 2015 #63
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #49
NanceGreggs May 2015 #52
L0oniX May 2015 #53
cui bono May 2015 #58
Recursion May 2015 #59
Fumesucker May 2015 #68
Recursion May 2015 #70
Fumesucker May 2015 #78
Recursion May 2015 #79
Fumesucker May 2015 #83
eridani May 2015 #61
cali May 2015 #65
Recursion May 2015 #84
George II May 2015 #94
Recursion May 2015 #73
JonLP24 May 2015 #85
MindPilot May 2015 #93

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 05:37 AM

1. One of the problems with being a corporatist trying to run a government;

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #1)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:21 AM

22. In for-profit prisons, prison labor is a revenue stream, prisoner education is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #22)

Sat May 30, 2015, 11:03 AM

26. Same as in many state-run prisons.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #1)

Sun May 31, 2015, 01:21 PM

95. One of the problems with being in the public eye for decades is....

....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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 06:29 AM

2. Um, 21 Years? Give or Take?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #2)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:31 AM

10. Has her stance changed? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #10)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:53 AM

13. bill's has.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #10)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:30 PM

32. Don't know. If you want to make a claim, find a more recent quote.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #32)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:58 PM

36. Yes technology advancements and political opinions are the same thing. Nice try. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #36)

Sat May 30, 2015, 05:55 PM

40. The original post is disingenuous. Digging up a two decade old quote against a recent interview.

 

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

The OP is a ridiculous proposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #2)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:53 AM

14. Perhaps you can provide some evidence that HRC's opinion..

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #14)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:19 PM

28. Perhaps we could avoid comparing something from over 2 decades ago to something said last week?

 

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #28)

Sat May 30, 2015, 04:08 PM

38. Maybe YOU should look up a more recent quote that makes YOUR point.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #38)

Sat May 30, 2015, 06:00 PM

41. I have made no such point.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #41)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:15 PM

43. No.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #43)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:18 PM

45. So you concede your point?

 

OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #45)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:40 PM

46. I concede that you failed to make your sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:37 PM

48. No, you refuse to back your claim.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #14)

Sun May 31, 2015, 01:49 AM

62. She recently stated we should end mass incarceration

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 07:31 AM - Edit history (2)

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #62)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:28 AM

66. Thank you.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #66)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:29 AM

67. Sorry, that was needlessly snarky. It was all over DU last week

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:39 AM

71. Accepted, gladly.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #71)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:51 AM

77. Glad I could help. Also, Sanders voted for the bill she was advocating for in the quote

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #14)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:55 AM

87. it's been done already in this discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #2)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:26 PM

30. It was as wrong then as it is now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #30)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:35 PM

33. I agree, it is embarrasingly inane to contend that a 21 year old quote is comparible with a recent

 

interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #33)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:01 AM

81. Particularly when Sanders voted in the House for the bill she was pushing in the quote (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #2)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:47 AM

75. Better yet: she was advocating a bill Sanders voted for (the Assault Weapons Ban)

Strange world we live in...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 06:34 AM

3. Hell, we need sentences for first time bank$ter/donor offenders. Perhaps the FBI ought to busy

 

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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 06:51 AM

4. Prison Pipeline

 

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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTBlueboy (Reply #4)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:17 AM

20. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:07 AM

5. Hillary has been more of a politician than her supporters like to admit. She has a lot of....

positions playing to "conservatives" to explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #5)

Sun May 31, 2015, 09:57 AM

91. Well then, at least on this issue you can say the same thing about Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:28 AM

6. she's "evolved" on this, just like healthcare and gay marriage

 

No principles, just political calculations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:00 AM

80. Sanders voted for the bill she was advocating for in this quote, the Assault Weapons Ban

It seems they have both changed their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Sun May 31, 2015, 09:57 AM

92. I guess Sanders has, too, on this issue - he AGREED with Clinton 21 years ago!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:30 AM

7. “We need more police...." ha ha, 1994. current thinking, two decades later?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:31 AM

8. Crime was huge in the 90s. Homicide rates coming off the crack epidemic.

 

Cities were clocking 1000+ homicides a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:50 AM

12. Yep another successful CIA program

So they could arm Iran.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:35 AM

69. Reyes, but there were many who believed that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:31 AM

9. I'll just focus on the second quote....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #9)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:56 AM

16. Anyone have any idea of Sanders' position on this issue back in 1994?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #16)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:02 AM

82. He agreed with Clinton enough to vote for the bill she was pushing for

It's more commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #82)

Sun May 31, 2015, 09:52 AM

90. Aha! So some obscure quote of Clinton from 20 years ago....

....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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:34 AM

11. All these hit pieces on Hillary Clinton are not going to bring your candidate closer to victory.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Sat May 30, 2015, 06:00 PM

42. Hillary's own words are now "hit pieces"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #42)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:18 PM

44. I don't even read them any more...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #44)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:41 PM

47. My goal is to discuss things I happen to be interested in

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:05 PM

54. OMG ...How dare people post quotes from Hillary!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #54)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:09 AM

64. All these hit pieces on Hillary Clinton are not going to bring your candidate closer to victory.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #64)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:42 AM

72. they might bring your candidate closer to defeat

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #72)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:49 AM

76. I don't believe I have every said she was my idol since I was ten.

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 Hillary Clinton are not going to bring your candidate closer to victory.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #64)

Sun May 31, 2015, 09:35 AM

88. Speaking of hit pieces ...here's one of the worst to hit DU from your side of the beltway.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #88)

Sun May 31, 2015, 09:38 AM

89. I would say the same thing about the post you cited

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:55 AM

15. Your point? Have you ever changed you opinion about anything? For that matter....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #15)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:03 AM

17. Has Hillary changed her position on this? Please provide a link. I'll be glad to revise/delete.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #17)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:55 AM

25. She addressed criminal justice reform in her keynote address....

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #15)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:28 PM

31. In a president, I value the ability to be a forward thinker

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:11 AM

18. Hillary has changed some ideas, but does Sanders advocate letting "violent criminals" loose???

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #18)

Sat May 30, 2015, 09:24 AM

24. No one advocated letting violent criminals out of prison. But by saying we needed "more prisons" ..

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #24)

Sat May 30, 2015, 11:11 AM

27. Then you have been in a cave...

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #27)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:37 PM

34. Overcrowded due to way too many locked away for bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #34)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:49 PM

35. That's the history that we all know....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #27)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:45 AM

74. "evolving" on yet another issue

 

Whither goes public opinion goes Hillary Clinton. So predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #74)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:43 AM

86. Sanders voted for the bill she was advocating for

I guess they both evolved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #24)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:37 PM

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

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.

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

Q: The US Sentencing Commission recently limited the disparity in sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine versus crimes involving powder cocaine. Should that change be retroactive?

A: I believe we’ve got to decrease the disparity that exists. It is really unconscionable that someone who uses five grams of crack cocaine, compared to 500 grams of powder cocaine would face such disparate sentencing. And it’s further compounded because the possession of crack cocaine really is unique in the way that it leads directly to prison for so many people. So I am going to tackle the disparity. I think it definitely needs to be prospective on principle. I have problems with retroactivity. I think that it’s something that a lot of communities will be concerned about as well, so let’s tackle this disparity, let’s take it on. The sentencing commission hasn’t come forward yet with its specific recommendation but I’m looking forward to seeing it.

Q: What is your approach to the “Drug War”?

CLINTON: I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

Q: Some people say your husband’s crime bill is one of the primary factors behind the rising incarceration rate for blacks and Latinos. It earmarked $8 billion dollars for prisons and continued a trend to harsher sentencing. Do you regret how this has affected the black community?

A: I think that the results--not only at the federal level but at the state level--have been an unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board & now we have to address that. At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities. It’s hard to remember now but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high. But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly start having more diversion and having more second chance programs.

We have to do all of these things:
We do have to go after racial profiling. I’ve supported legislation to try to tackle that.
We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.
We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.


And she just gave a speech last month about the issue of incarceration:
There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.

There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are "missing" from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death.

There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can't find a job.

There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities.

We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #18)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:20 PM

56. Miss Cleo is ripping you off. Try a better source. Maybe buy your own set of Tarot cards.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:14 AM

19. I doubt Sanders was referring to 'violent offenders'

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #19)

Sat May 30, 2015, 09:19 AM

23. Why do you think Hillary said we needed "more prisons" when she could have advocated ..

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:17 AM

21. Gotta love that hide thread feature

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:07 PM

55. Can't wait for her pro Iraq war vote to also be 21 years ago so it won't mean anything.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Sun May 31, 2015, 12:40 AM

60. Women don't have to base their opinions on those of their husbands. I assume that was

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 02:24 PM

29. we have become what we feared during the cold war

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 03:07 PM

37. The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. Albert Camus

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 05:55 PM

39. I have no problem with violent criminals being locked in prison.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #39)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:40 PM

50. I agree.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #50)

Sat May 30, 2015, 09:19 PM

51. You said it better than I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #39)

Sun May 31, 2015, 02:09 AM

63. Agreed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 08:39 PM

49. She's gonna need to address things like the drug war and marijuana legalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:01 PM

52. Just playing Devil's Advocate here ...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 10:03 PM

53. I knew this OP was about Hillary before I came in here. No Miss Cleo needed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 30, 2015, 11:34 PM

58. I have to agree that using a quote from 1994 is not fair nor a valid comparison.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun May 31, 2015, 12:26 AM

59. And, in the intervening decades, we got both of them, and the crime rate plummeted

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #59)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:35 AM

68. The problem is the crime rate plummeted in the same time frame in other nations

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #68)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:37 AM

70. That's a very good point

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #70)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:58 AM

78. More incarceration inevitably leads to more crime and more sophisticated criminals

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #78)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:59 AM

79. Which is why I, like you, and Sanders, and Clinton, want to end mass incarceration

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:05 AM

83. I looked up my own words on DU and found I was talking about this in 2008

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun May 31, 2015, 01:47 AM

61. What's her current position? She changed on marriage equality, after all

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #61)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:26 AM

65. you have to admit, she changes her opinions on issues to fit the

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #65)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:07 AM

84. Sanders voted for the bill that Clinton was advocating in this quote

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #65)

Sun May 31, 2015, 01:17 PM

94. Bernie Sanders doesn't? For that matter, EVERYONE changes positions from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun May 31, 2015, 07:44 AM

73. BTW the bill she was advocating in that speech is more widely known as the "Assault Weapons Ban"

Which then-Representative Sanders voted for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:19 AM

85. I never saw prison to be much helpful of anything

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #85)

Sun May 31, 2015, 10:27 AM

93. You are very correct.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread