2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMonths before the Netroots BLM disruption, HRC spoke out strongly for criminal justice reform.
In April, at the David Dinkins Leadership Forum, Hillary Clinton called for strong criminal justice reforms, including requiring police to wear body cameras. She also called for taking weapons of war off of our cities streets and the end of mass incarceration.
At Netroots in July other candidates were caught flat-flooted when the BLM protesters demanded to hear their plans for criminal justice reform.
Hillary would have been ready with an answer.
ON EDIT: At the end, I've just added a link to the entire text of her speech.
http://time.com/3839892/hillary-clinton-calls-for-an-end-to-mass-incarceration/
Hillary Clinton Calls for an End to Mass Incarceration
Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell Updated: April 29, 2015
Hillary Clinton called on Wednesday for broad criminal-justice reform and renewed trust between police officers and communities, reflecting the former first ladys evolution from supporting the policies instituted by her husband two decades ago in a period of high crime rates.
Clinton called for body cameras in every police department in the country, as well as an end to an era of mass incarceration. Her speech came two days after the funeral in Baltimore of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died while in police custody, and amidst ongoing civil unrest in that city.
SNIP
Clinton planned Wednesdays speech in November, months before she announced her candidacy, according to former New York mayor David Dinkins, who introduced her. In her three weeks as a presidential candidate, Clintons only major speeches have been at noncampaign events like todays at Columbia University. Her comments were her most significant on domestic policing since she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013.
SNIP
The views Clinton expressed Wednesday arent new. In her first presidential campaign, Clinton called it a disgrace that so many more African Americans were incarcerated than whites, and as early as 2000 decried policing practices that appeared to target African Americans and Latinos. Let us start by recognizing that crime is down dramatically and lives have been saved in this city because every day, brave men and women put on a uniform and place themselves in harms way to protect us, she said in 2000. And let us also recognize that far too many people believe they are considered guilty simply because of the color of their skin.
THE TEXT OF HER SPEECH:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8514831/hillary-clinton-criminal-justice-transcript
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Did she speak on the role she played leading to mass incarceration ? yes advocating for legislation makes one guilty.
Has she called for the demilitarization of police department across the nation ? or a community review board
Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #1)
SidDithers This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)she would take a different approach than her husband? No.
Yes, she has called for the demilitarization of police departments, among other things. Here is the full text of her speech:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8514831/hillary-clinton-criminal-justice-transcript
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He explains why here:
"I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act."
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Both are the same to me
yes Her and Sen. Sanders will have to explain to why !
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which was the highest in history.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)
"I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act."
And more here:
In other words, there is a logical and rational process called cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as controversial as that statement may be.
A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fieldsit is likely that the crop will fail.
A company neglects to invest in research and developmentit is likely that the company will not be profitable.
In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its populationwhich leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and it is the case in countries throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)hundreds and thousands of more police and three strikes you're out.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)only complained that it took so long to get it passed.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)But yes, as a First Lady, she lobbied for her husband's bill in 1994, and Bernie voted for it.
That has nothing to do with the how either of them would address criminal justice reform as President in 2017.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)prison reformers, prisoner and ex-prisoner advocates, nurses, enlightened law enforcement officials
who fought back against many of the provisions in the bill. Our main objections? It would increase the mass incarceration of poor people. It would increase draconian policing in primarily not-white communities.
All across this nation, activists were protesting many of the more inhumane elements of this bill while Hillary and Bill were "getting tough on crime". I'm not even sure she believed what she was advocating. Her history on crimes and reform looks like a roller coaster.
I'm sticking with the person who has been most consistent on speaking out against those elements of the bill that Hillary was boosting.
azmom
(5,208 posts)I'm confused.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/06/nyregion/mrs-clinton-vows-fight-on-issues-and-image.html?pagewanted=1
azmom
(5,208 posts)Find anything
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)You mean to tell govt at the time couldn't find find the root cause of the "violence" ?
So the best thing was to build more prisons, hire more cops, create a pipeline for juveniles to get into system ?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Or is she compromised by wanting to protect his legacy?
She needs to directly criticize what President Bill Clinton signed into law before anything she says on this issue has any meaning at all.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)It appears to me that she will be working to "undo her husband's crime bill" -- or much of it, anyway.
Good for her.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Can you really trust her to follow through on it?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)This is 2015, not 1994.
One of the things I like about Hillary is that she IS flexible and not rigidly dogmatic. And she's willing to acknowledge when past decisions need to be reconsidered.
By the way, Bernie also supported the 1994 bill -- he voted for it. And he has also shown an ability to reconsider a position, since he's now supporting reform. Are you going to accuse him of flip flopping, too?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)"But more broadly, let's remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country."
Other than the above bag full of "STFU and obey the officer," it's pretty much the expected pap.
Oh, she also says we should slap body cameras on cops.
Well, beats saying we shouldn't do that, I guess.
Yes, "huge" speech.
azmom
(5,208 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)correct?
she needs to be directly criticized for having no sya in it, while sanders should not be directly criticized for voting it and it getting passed, per his pen?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Short,. Suggest watching
" target="_blank">
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)just guessing.
But you seem to ignore the point that way back then he was addressing those issues in terms that would be even be considered very strong even by today's standards.....and back at a time when the default political position was to get "tougher on crime."
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)where he shouldn't have been surprised by another "ambush."
Unlike Sanders, O'Malley had already released a written plan for criminal justice reform -- after being confronted at Netroots -- that the BLM pointed to at the Sanders rally. They wanted to know why Sanders didn't have one.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Happy? Feel all good inside?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)four very strong amazing Black Lives Matter activists. People who have consistently had their boots on the ground in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. The same activists were also communicating with O'Malley and Clinton.
The Seattle protest at the Social Security and Medicare event (it was not a Sanders rally - his rally was later in the day - 12,000 people attended) was not the reason why he released his criminal justice reform plan. The plan was already being hammered out during the weeks leading up to the Seattle rally.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Were not aware of what was going on behind the scene? Symone was already on board, and it looks like the plan was being finalized.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The first chapter started in NYC, the second in San Francisco shortly afterwards. Then chapters sprung up all over the U.S. in the following year. Other than providing some original resource materials, we rarely communicated with each other. Each chapter fashioned their own agenda based on regional concerns.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Even the much vilified Webb make that a centerpiece of his short Senate career.
Hell, even some the Republicans are decent on criminal justice these days.
It's like the political class has finally acknowledged it has a monstrosity on its hands.