Hillary Announces Plan to Revamp Criminal Justice Policy
Posted on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 04:15:42 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Hillary Clinton today announced a plan to revamp criminal justice policy and end the focus on mass incarceration ad draconian sentences, policies favored during the Bill Clinton administration.
Clinton unveiled a sweeping set of proposed criminal justice reforms that would dismantle much of what her husband did. .. Whereas Bill looked to lock up offenders and throw away the key, Hillary is seeking to “end mass incarceration.” His focus was on resources for law enforcement; hers is on transparency meant to protect suspects.
Bill promoted zero tolerance, while Hillary is inclined to lend a second chance. “Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families,” she said of children guilty of nonviolent offenses.
[More...]
First, I think it's great that she chose criminal justice reform for her first major policy address.
Second, the media is overlooking that Bill Clinton himself has said he regrets the draconian sentencing policies of his administration. How do I know this? I asked him directly in 2006. I remember beginning my question with "Are you sorry now" that so many mandatory minimum sentences and other harsh policies came in during his administration. I remember his answer began with, "You know, I kind of am" and then proceeded to say why.
My point is that it's not only Hillary that is repudiating the overly harsh, ill-advised policies of the Clinton administration -- Bill Clinton acknowledged almost a decade ago they were misguided.
Let's also not forget who takes credit for spearheading many of the worst bills through Congress during the Clinton Administration: Joe Biden.
Hillary Clinton today (from the text of her speech)
It's a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world's total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.
Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.
Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.
One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.
When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we're talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.
They're not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.
Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.
And it's not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.
And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.
The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That's the salary of a teacher or police officer.
One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton.
If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we'd save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues.It's time to change our approach. It's time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe.
I don't know all the answers. That's why I'm here—to ask all the smart people in Columbia and New York to start thinking this through with me. I know we should work together to pursue together to pursue alternative punishments for low-level offenders. They do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don't want that to be a fast track to long-term criminal activity, we don't want to create another "incarceration generation."
I've been encouraged to see changes that I supported as Senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law.
And last year, the Sentencing Commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes.
...There are other measures that I and so many others have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences are long overdue.
We also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble to stay out of prison. I've seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment of individuals and communities. And please, please, let us put mental health back at the top of our national agenda.
You and I know that the promise of de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the creation of community-based treatment centers. Well, we got half of that equation—but not the other half. Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions.
I have to tell you I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health. "What are we going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness?" "What are we going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons?" "What are we going to do when hospitals don't really get reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients?"
It's not just a problem in our cities. There's a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small-town and rural America as well. We have to do more and finally get serious about treatment.
I'll be talking about all of this in the months to come, offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities.
This isn't Hillary's first criticism of draconian sentencing. In 2008, I compared her and Obama's records on criminal justice. Both she and Obama co-sponsored the Second Chance Act. I also noted that at their third debate at Howard University, she said:
We have to do all of these things. Number one, we do have to go after racial profiling. I’ve supported legislation to try to tackle that.
Number two, 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.
Three, 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. (Applause.)
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.
The War on Drugs began with Richard Nixon. Mandatory minimum sentences came in under Ronald Reagan and continued under George Bush I -- and GW Bush. There's no monopoly on wrong headed thinking over the last four decades.
Instead of being skeptical about Hillary Clinton's motives, why don't we all just say "Thank you."
< Jakarta Globe Criticizes Joko Widodo Over Executions | Oral Arguments Over Lethal Injection Drugs > |