1994 crime bill

[Elijah John]

One day Bill Clinton defends his 1994 crime bill in front of angry protesters. The very next day he said he was "tempted to apologize" for it.

Clinton's own wife Hillary seems to be against it now. And Democrats in general seem to hate the bill.

Questions for debate:

1) What happened? Why did Bill Clinton suddenly backtrack?

2) What exactly is wrong with the 1994 Crime Bill? What are the supposed problems with it?

[Elijah John]

One day Bill Clinton defends his 1994 crime bill in front of angry protesters. The very next day he said he was "tempted to apologize" for it.

Clinton's own wife Hillary seems to be against it now. And Democrats in general seem to hate the bill.

Questions for debate:

1) What happened? Why did Bill Clinton suddenly backtrack?

2) What exactly is wrong with the 1994 Crime Bill? What are the supposed problems with it?

I hear the phrases the bill has led to "mass incarceration" of "superpredators". from the bill's critics...if this is, in fact, true, what is wrong with locking up the "worst of the worst"?

[bluethread]

One day Bill Clinton defends his 1994 crime bill in front of angry protesters. The very next day he said he was "tempted to apologize" for it.

Clinton's own wife Hillary seems to be against it now. And Democrats in general seem to hate the bill.

Questions for debate:

1) What happened? Why did Bill Clinton suddenly backtrack?

2) What exactly is wrong with the 1994 Crime Bill? What are the supposed problems with it?

I hear the phrases the bill has led to "mass incarceration" of "superpredators". from the bill's critics...if this is, in fact, true, what is wrong with locking up the "worst of the worst"?

Because, the way the crime bill is implemented, most of the "worst of the worst" have darker skin than the average general population. In this case, fine tuning is not acceptable. The entire bill is supposed to be thrown out. However, without the bill, the majority of people harmed by the "worst of the worst" have darker skin than the average general population. So, if you don't do something to stop "worst of the worst" you are a racist and if you do something to stop "worst of the worst" you are a racist, This is how it has worked when talking about conservatives for decades. With the advent of the black-lives-matter movement, it is now being applied to liberals. That's not FAIR!

[Elijah John]

One day Bill Clinton defends his 1994 crime bill in front of angry protesters. The very next day he said he was "tempted to apologize" for it.

Clinton's own wife Hillary seems to be against it now. And Democrats in general seem to hate the bill.

Questions for debate:

1) What happened? Why did Bill Clinton suddenly backtrack?

2) What exactly is wrong with the 1994 Crime Bill? What are the supposed problems with it?

I hear the phrases the bill has led to "mass incarceration" of "superpredators". from the bill's critics...if this is, in fact, true, what is wrong with locking up the "worst of the worst"?

Because, the way the crime bill is implemented, most of the "worst of the worst" have darker skin than the average general population. In this case, fine tuning is not acceptable. The entire bill is supposed to be thrown out. However, without the bill, the majority of people harmed by the "worst of the worst" have darker skin than the average general population. So, if you don't do something to stop "worst of the worst" you are a racist and if you do something to stop "worst of the worst" you are a racist, This is how it has worked when talking about conservatives for decades. With the advent of the black-lives-matter movement, it is now being applied to liberals. That's not FAIR!

I just heard Bernie say the use of the term "superpredators" is racist. If the shoe fits, the term applies...no matter WHAT the color, it seems to me.

If blacks in any given area commit more crimes as a matter of percentage, it only follows that they will inhabit jail cells at a higher percentage as well.

Racism does not put them in "mass incarceration", their crimes do.

[Furrowed Brow]

America seems to have a problem in that is now puts more people in prison than just about anyone else. Whatever institutional racism resides in the legislation, courts, policies, and police, issues like this one break out because of the additional stresses to minorities when the system is intent on incarcerating so many of its people.



The increase is dramatic and this kind of social change can't be made without increased tensions and anxieties felt throughout society. Whilst every section of society faces an increased risk of prison there is a clear cut colour bias, a white male has a 1 in 17 chance of going to prison, for a black man its 1 in 3. The stress felt by that rise in the prison population is felt harder on one section of society than another. The rise in prison population made a bad problem worse. But this is a trend that began somewhere back in the 1980s way before 1994.

I don't think the 1994 bill made much of a dent in the established trend. However it was a statement of intent to punish people more severely and expand the prison system. If anything the 1994 bill was a symptom of the trend and commitment to more of the same.

Simple point: America has racial problems and that peak on the above graph is likely not helping.

Should the 1994 bill be singled out? Probably not. But politics is not rational and the 1994 bill is symbolic of deeper injustices rooted in stagnant wages since the late 1970s, industrial decline, war on drugs, institutional racism etcetera.

Racism does not put them in "mass incarceration", their crimes do.

I find this kind of thinking avoids the issues. Individuals makes choices and individual crimes lead to individuals being incarcerated. Most people get that connection. But when the word "mass" is introduced the idea that something is happening to a lot of people at once is implicit. People are doing something as a mass. What turns individuals into a mass of people? To answer "their crimes" is to fail to answer the question as to why so many...why a mass? And more importantly why the over representative of people of colour.



Besides from these bare figures there is sufficient evidence to indicate racial disparity in arrests, convictions, sentences, and the death penalty. Racism clearly does show itself through what happens to people as a mass. People committing crime and the reason for that are one side of the problem, the other side is how the system and institutions that enforce the system respond and how they frame something as criminal. The prohibition and war on drugs for example compared to other countries that have made steps to decriminalise drugs. Drugs addicts treated as opposed to punished for instance.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Furrowed Brow]

I agree the addict deserves more understanding, but not the dealer.

And also, why a "mass"? Because a greater mass of certain demographics commit a greater mass of the crimes. You honestly think that more blacks and latinos are imprisoned because society is "out to get them" based on their race?

Could it be that law enforcement and the judicial system puts more of them in prison as a percentage because they tend to commit more crimes relative to their numbers?

That is not racism, those are facts.

Why make excuses for criminal behavior that puts them in that position in the first place?

It is not "society's fault". People are not imprisoned for being "black" or for "being Hispanic". Those are not crimes.

Are there occasional injustices, miscarraiges of justice etc based on individual prejudice? Yes, but I submit those are the exceptions, and not the rule. Those cases would be individual, not institutional racism.

One should not give the perpetrators license no matter what injustices may or may not have happened in the past. Take the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Evidence overwhelmingly showed he attempted to take that officer's sidearm. Should he have been allowed to take the officer's weapon, or given a pass because he was black?

Should the police officer have allowed himself or others to be killed because the thug wanted his gun?

If, in certain cases, justice has been misapplied then those who misapplied that justice should be held to account, but false narratives should not be spun out of isolated occurances, even if those false narratives serve the media or the Democratic candidates pandering. Cops are not out to get blacks for being black.

Laws should not be changed to accomodate the criminal. I don't see any reason the 1994 crime bill should be repealed, just because one does not like the consequences, or those consequences are not "politically correct". Or because those consequences highlight unpleasant realities.

If the bill gets thugs off the street, (no matter what demographic) what's the problem?

[Furrowed Brow]

And also, why a "mass"? Because a greater mass of certain demographics commit a greater mass of the crimes.

Are you using arrest rates to determine the crime rate? That may be a flaw in any argument that attempts to say the system is not biased.

You honestly think that more blacks and latinos are imprisoned because society is "out to get them" based on their race?

The simplest unvarnished answer is yes, but it is also more structural than that makes it sound.

For example: rates of smoking marijuana are roughly equal in whites and non whites, but black skin means you are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested. link 1 link 2 There are likely many reasons for this disparity. Structural reasons amongst them. Blacks and latinos for historical and economic reasons tend to live in poorer urban more heavily policed areas. Heavier policing helps explain the biased arrest rates and undermines the superficial conclusion blacks and latinos are simply more criminally minded. So here would be an example of how an economic inequality skews “crime rates�.

Could it be that law enforcement and the judicial system puts more of them in prison as a percentage because they tend to commit more crimes relative to their numbers?

That is not racism, those are facts.

Arrest, conviction and incarceration rates are the facts. An unwillingness to question the system that creates the figures and insist the system is not biased is an incomplete analysis. When there is clear evidence the system is biased, every attempt to say “it ain’t the system it’s the people� reinforces the sense society really is out to get them

It also seems you are blending two related issues.

• 1/ the biases in the system that mean a black person is more likely to be arrested and receive heavier sentencing because the system is biased.
  2/ the greater likelihood color is correlated to a greater propensity for breaking a law

The first issue says nothing about the individual. It focuses on the system. And it is an issue you are bleaching out of the picture. The second issue focuses on the individual and their place in society and how the laws and institutes are framed, economic conditions etcetera, versus the individuals culpability. The second issue is more complex and whilst personal culpability is the major factor ignoring all other factors provides only an incomplete picture.

Judging by your willingness to focus solely on the individuals personal culpability it suggests an unwillingness to entertain structural economic and historical reason that place one section of society at greater risk of certain kinds of criminal activity.

Why make excuses for criminal behavior that puts them in that position in the first place?

Seeking a cogent explanation of all the factors that lead to greater incarcerations rates is not seeking an excuse. Pointing out the fact a black man is more likely to be arrested, convicted and receive a harsher sentence for the same crime committed by a white man is not excusing the crime. It is pointing out the system is biased. Pointing out there maybe economic and historical factors is not to excuse a specific crime, but it does mean a tendency to be less willing to support the system as it is presently structured.

People are not imprisoned for being "black" or for "being Hispanic". Those are not crimes.

Officially no. But the data suggests the system is skewed. Black men receive sentences 20% longer than white for the same types of crime. link 3.

Are there occasional injustices, miscarraiges of justice etc based on individual prejudice? Yes, but I submit those are the exceptions, and not the rule. Those cases would be individual, not institutional racism.

The data suggest it is far more systematic than you are letting on, and this is not about miscarriage of justice but the application of justice - and its biases - and the kind of factors that feed into that 20% disparity.

One should not give the perpetrators license no matter what injustices may or may not have happened in the past.

Who is arguing for that? Where does accounting for all the material conditions translate into licensing the perpetration of crime?

And prior to the 1980s did America really give a licence to crime? Does America really have to imprison more of its population than anyone else to show it is not giving a licence to crime?

Take the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Evidence overwhelmingly showed he attempted to take that officer's sidearm. Should he have been allowed to take the officer's weapon, or given a pass because he was black?

Police officer need to deal with the crime in front of them. Where we put the police officer and the social conditions we expect the office to police is down to society.

Should the police officer have allowed himself or others to be killed because the thug wanted his gun?

Well there is a whole other debate here about firearms and another about media narrative and distrust of the police. But the simple answer is no a police office needs too manage a situation in a safe way and this includes their own safety and the safety of the public. (I would add the comment American policing techniques seem jaw droopingly aggressive compared to those we are more used to in the UK. Video).

Cops are not out to get blacks for being black.

Cope are the frontline face of a system that the evidence clearly shows is biased against colour.

Laws should not be changed to accomodate the criminal.I don't see any reason the 1994 crime bill should be repealed, just because one does not like the consequences, or those consequences are not "politically correct". Or because those consequences highlight unpleasant realities.

Well as I said the 1994 bill is more a sympton of a larger trend. If you think it is curing the problem and making America a safer and happier place I think the data says otherwise.

If the bill gets thugs off the street, (no matter what demographic) what's the problem?

But does the America propensity to incarcerate a greater number of its population and exasperate the colour bias in that system making America a safer place? If those huge prison populations really are necessary this begs the question what is going wrong in America?