Hillary Clinton was harassed for about a half hour on Friday by ten to twenty BlackLivesMatter protesters and, as to be expected, the chameleon responded with re-announcing her proposal for criminal justice reform. We don’t know what it is in full yet, she’s evolving, but a campaign aide said it will include equal sentencing rules for crack and powder cocaine offenses and she wants to ban racial profiling.
It’s ironic listening to her because in the 1990s, Clinton was a cheerleader for the “tough on crime” policies that produced the “era of mass incarceration”. As senator, she never produced one bill that would indicate she was serious about toning down the war on drugs which led to the imprisonment of people for marijuana offenses.
It was her husband who created the policies, increased penalties and additional prison construction. He’s been called the “incarceration president.”
Trusting Obama or Hillary with our criminal justice system is probably not a good idea. She wants a nationalization of policing with leftist ideals controlling policy throughout every local police station, every court, every state.
One tactic that these leftists use is to take something with some truth and make it into a crisis for the purpose of fundamental change. That is what will happen with criminal justice reform if we let it happen.
The second issue her campaign aide mentioned is the stuff of nightmares. Profiling is a key law enforcement tool. It is not meant to scapegoat people by race, sex or religion but it does help define the type of criminal the police are looking for. A rule like this would leave any officer who mentions the person’s race or religion or gender in danger of a lawsuit or weakened before a liberal judge.
If a bomb is set off in Manhattan, one of the suspects should be a terrorist for logical reasons. If a black gang member is killed, the suspect should be profiled as another black gang member. Profiling doesn’t rule out other types of suspects, it narrows down the field because if a murderer, for instance, isn’t caught in the first 48 hours, there is a good chance the murderer will go free.
Unfortunately, blacks, who are only 12.5% of the population, comprise 50% of the prison population. They are there because they committed crimes. If they are unduly punished because they can’t afford good lawyers or because they are black, that must be addressed but not in a way that exonerates them for their crimes and treat them as innocents.
The theory is that police are profiling and targeting blacks because of the color of their skin and that is the main reason these black youth are in jail.
In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders in America; whites committed 4,396. Whites comprise 63 percent of the population; blacks 13 percent. In a whopping 90 percent of black homicides, the dead person is another black or the offender himself.
A total of 99.9%+ of all police arrests do not result in a fatality.
In the past 50 years, the rate of black Americans killed by police has dropped 70 percent. In 2012, 123 African- Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A. Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available.
More than ninety percent of all inter-racial crime is black-on-white.
To blame this on law enforcement is illogical though we all want to see overly-agressive cops controlled and bad cops punished, they are not the real problem.
Outlawing profiling will make a lot of lawyers happy and put more criminals out on the street. It’s ignoring the core problems.
Banning profiling affects more than minorities. Serial killers are often caught thanks to profiling. Profiling is a good tactic and the left wants to paint it with a broad brush because a few might have misused it.
Clinton promised an “end the era of mass incarceration.” We all want that but we don’t want it by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets.
Clinton also called for nationwide use of body cameras by police departments which is a big goal of Black Lives Matter. It has widespread support, but she herself should walk around with a tape recorder and body camera so we can try to figure out when she’s actually telling the truth.
Hillary Clinton said she would take executive action as president to “ban the box” within the federal government and for federal contractors, preventing questions about criminal history in the early stages of the hiring process for most positions, the Democratic presidential candidate announced.
“Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony”? will not be asked on employment applications.
We’ll have a government full of criminals, oh, wait, silly me, they’ll fit right in.
Far-left Slate was happy with her speech on criminal justice reforms but they had some reservations:
Half of the people in state prisons are there for violent crimes, and many nonviolent offenders have violent histories. To reduce incarceration, we need to rethink punishment for violent offenders, too. There, Clinton is silent.
They want the violent ones out too? How far will this go?
Some on the left say non-violent crimes such as stealing a bike are not criminal and we shouldn’t insult them by calling them criminals.
“Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty,” she said. “And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who re-enter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.”
Of course if these people didn’t commit crimes and landed in jail, they could be employed and they could support their children. If job training works, then it should be increased but there are such opportunities in prison already. They can get a college degree in jail.
Is it discrimination to not want to hire a felon or a safe practice? This needs discussion, not executive orders. Whenever the government is involved, the situation grows worse.
Hillary said she wants to see that “federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets.” Best practices decided by Hillary is one scary proposition.
Tamping down over-policing is good but going to the complete opposite is not good. Defining policing as social work instead of law enforcement is right in line with the anarchy this administration has fomented in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. Remember when police were ordered to stand down and both Ferguson and Baltimore burned.