Neal Peirce of the National League of Cities has a column in the current issue of Nation's Cities Weekly bemoaning the absence of issues related to drugs, crime, and prison in the national political discourse:
Will America’s ill-starred “war on drugs” and its expanding prison culture make it into the presidential campaign?Peirce's reading of the candidates' crime platforms suggests that chances for reform would be "much brighter" in an Obama administration than a McCain administration, especially in light of Obama's more nuanced approach to drug offenders (i.e., supporting diversion programs, drug courts, etc.) relative to McCain's more "hawkish" position (i.e., supporting "get tough" policies like death penalty eligibilty for drug kingpins). Still, Peirce concedes that a discussion of either candidates' views is not likely occur during the remainder of the campaign, noting that "it's been 20 years since drugs and prisons have even been mentioned in the televised presidential debates."
Standard wisdom says “no way.”
We may have the world’s highest rate of incarceration — with only 5 percent of global population, 25 percent of prisoners worldwide. We may be throwing hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders, many barely of age, behind bars — one reason a stunning one out of every 100 Americans is now imprisoned. We may have created a huge “prison-industrial complex” of prison builders, contractors and swollen criminal justice bureaucracies.
Federal, state and local outlays for law enforcement and incarceration are costing, according to a Senate committee estimate, a stunning $200 billion annually, siphoning off funds from enterprises that actually build our future: universities, schools, health, infrastructure.
We are reaping the whirlwind of “get tough” on crime statutes ranging from “three strikes you’re in” to mandatory sentences to reincarcerating recent prisoners for minor parole violations. And every year we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of convicts leave prison with scant chances of being employed, no right to vote, no access to public housing, high levels of addiction, illiteracy and mental illness. Overwhelmed by the odds against them, at least 50 percent get rearrested within two years.
A serious set of problems, a shadow over our national future? No doubt. But do our politicians talk much about alternatives? No way — they typically find it too risky to be attacked as “soft on crime.”
What do you think? Why aren't crime issues featured more prominently in the national political discourse, especially during a presidential election season? Is it because crime issues seem less-than-consequential relative to hugely important topics like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the struggling economy? Or are candidates of either party loath to discuss these issues for fear of being labeled "soft on crime"? Or perhaps it is a supply-and-demand issue, in which the press and public don't push candidates to share their views about crime, so they don't? I'm not sure, but I do wish that the "crime conversation" was a bigger part of the national political discourse, especially in the run-up to a presidential election.
(On the other hand, perhaps I should be careful what I wish for.)
Posts
3 comments:
One of my DOPEY colleagues was quoted in the LA Times or something as saying that's because "Crime is an issue Governors' deal with, not Presidents." This is the same guy who was giggly when Clinton championed the 1994 Crime Bill.
Seems a pretty simple but interesting answer to your question: Because crime is generally down and its not a national concern at this time.
I heart Scooby! I do lament the absence of the discussion of crime from the conventions. At the same time, there is ample discussion of crime in both party's platforms. I will post more later, but I downloaded them and presented them in class on Monday. In my humble opinion, there is little difference in the crime positions. They both want to punish sex offenders, mention drug courts, note the importance of prisoner reentry, and argue for more police on the street. Pretty agreable and bland. I do have to note that both senators have much more detailed descriptions of their crime platforms on their senatorial webpages.
And yes, Scoob is right, it is all about the economy.
That is the interesting little "dirty secret." Dems have the same crime platform as Rep - thank Billy Boy for that. I still find it intriguing that few liberal (any others?) academics mention that the greatest expansion of the federal death penalty occurred under a democratic president. They parties are nearly identical on the crime issue right now.
Post a Comment