Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe debate over the Clintons and the effect of the '94 bill is important -- but it can't end there
Bill Clinton listens as Hillary Clinton addresses a group at Maine South High School in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, March 11, 1992. (Credit: Reuters/Sue Ogrocki)
The nineties are back. Over the past few months, FX has introduced a new generation of viewers to the O.J. Simpson trial (and reminded the rest of us of the lurid details we had forgotten). HBO has transported us to an era of Seinfeld and shoulder pads in order to re-enact Anita Hills testimony in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in Confirmation. And, as the likelihood of a second Clinton presidency increases, we find ourselves re-litigating the criminal justice debates that took place when the first Clinton was in office.
These debates are critically important to mending our broken criminal justice system, but too often they remain incomplete. Commentators have keyed on the 94 crime bill (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to be exact), a sweeping piece of legislation that directed more money to law enforcement and amped up penalties for a range of offenses. In a much-publicized confrontation at a campaign stop, Bill Clinton sparred with protestors who criticized the 94 bill. Clinton defended the Act, doubling down on 90s-era rhetoric about violent crime and safe streets.
The bill is a worthy target of attack, but the critique shouldnt end there. Focused on a specific detail or data point, current conversations overstate one piece of legislation and understate the range of policies that helped drive the decades staggering incarceration rates. By expanding the focus of the debates from the bill to a broader range of Clinton-era policies, we can draft a blueprint for fixing the damage wrought by decades of tough-on-crime politics.
Whether the 94 bill was as harmful as critics contend and what Hillary Clintons support for it says about her are both important questions. But too many of the contemporary debates miss the Acts place in a broader pantheon of federal criminal justice policies of the 1990s. Two other Clinton-era bills deserve more attention: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
These debates are critically important to mending our broken criminal justice system, but too often they remain incomplete. Commentators have keyed on the 94 crime bill (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to be exact), a sweeping piece of legislation that directed more money to law enforcement and amped up penalties for a range of offenses. In a much-publicized confrontation at a campaign stop, Bill Clinton sparred with protestors who criticized the 94 bill. Clinton defended the Act, doubling down on 90s-era rhetoric about violent crime and safe streets.
The bill is a worthy target of attack, but the critique shouldnt end there. Focused on a specific detail or data point, current conversations overstate one piece of legislation and understate the range of policies that helped drive the decades staggering incarceration rates. By expanding the focus of the debates from the bill to a broader range of Clinton-era policies, we can draft a blueprint for fixing the damage wrought by decades of tough-on-crime politics.
Whether the 94 bill was as harmful as critics contend and what Hillary Clintons support for it says about her are both important questions. But too many of the contemporary debates miss the Acts place in a broader pantheon of federal criminal justice policies of the 1990s. Two other Clinton-era bills deserve more attention: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Snip
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/07/its_worse_than_just_the_1994_crime_bill_the_clintons_criminal_justice_and_the_damage_of_90s_crime_politics/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 467 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The debate over the Clintons and the effect of the '94 bill is important -- but it can't end there (Original Post)
LiberalArkie
May 2016
OP
The 'debate' is a fraud, since Bernie never shares blame for voting for it...
CrowCityDem
May 2016
#2
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)1. The bill that
Bernie voted for?
Oh yeah, I forgot, Bernie is excused from all his anti-Progressive votes.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)2. The 'debate' is a fraud, since Bernie never shares blame for voting for it...
just like no one seems to care that he voted for a piece of Rumsfeld-penned legislation that made it the official policy of the US to advocate for regime change in Iraq, and the removal of Saddam Hussein. What's that? Bernie was for war in Iraq before he was against it?
all american girl
(1,788 posts)3. Mmmmm, Bernie voted for it...not Hillary, but you know that, right?