Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 22, 2019

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday outlined a stem-to-stern criminal justice overhaul that would abolish the death penalty and end cash bail, while unwinding most of the 1994 crime bill and investing heavily in diversion programs. The Democratic presidential candidates have largely agreed on the broad strokes -- and necessity -- of reimagining the US' approach to criminal justice, which has led to a crisis of mass incarceration that disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. Warren's plan, which she spelled out in a new Medium post, would decriminalize marijuana and repeal large swaths of the 1994 crime bill, the most enduring product of the "tough on crime" era. Warren also spells out specific breaks with the Trump administration, including a promise to end the Justice Department directive requiring federal prosecutors to seek maximum prison terms.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Warren:

"The United States makes up 5% of the world’s population, but nearly 20% of the world’s prison population. We have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, with over 2 million people in prison and jail.

"Our system is the result of the dozens of choices we’ve made â€" choices that together stack the deck against the poor and the disadvantaged. Simply put, we have criminalized too many things. We send too many people to jail. We keep them there for too long. We do little to rehabilitate them."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

My support for Elizabeth Warren continues to grow. She, imo, is clearly the liberal class of the field. Every change she suggests in our CJ system is a change I support.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-20 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

As my old man use to say when I come home on a leave visit with grandiose plans:

You talk real good.

#2 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-20 01:25 PM | Reply

Even though I wish she would consider Andrew Yang, I unfortunately suspect she will choose Kamala Harris to be VP. Which I guess is okay. But Harris really did suck as California's AG. She was a Republican at heart in the way she dishonestly pursued prosecutions. Which is why it is important that Warren is making it clear, now, what her plan will be on the subject.

Hopefully the rest of the field will fade away in the next few months. I really expect it to come down to just her and Biden. The liberal or the centrist. As far as I'm concerned, either one would be acceptable. Biden is not like HRC who was unacceptable for so many reasons. Even liberals will be able to rally around him if he does get the nomination. I just would like to see a real liberal lead the ticket.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-20 03:20 PM | Reply

#3 If Warren gets the nomination, I'd like to see Gabbard as VP, but I don't think she'd pick a woman.

And I agree that Harris blows chowder.

#4 | Posted by Karabekian at 2019-08-20 03:40 PM | Reply

I'd vote for her, but I'd be surprised if she made the convention. The DNC/MSM is all in on Joe.

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field - www.cnn.com

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-20 03:50 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton chose a Southerner when he chose Al Gore. Warren may play a similar strategy by picking a woman. A two women ticket could potentially be overwhelming. You thinks blacks voted disproportionately for Obama? Wait til you see the percentage of women across the country who would support a female ticket headed by Warren.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-20 03:51 PM | Reply

A two women ticket

Will flop.

Sorry Mod, America isn't as progressive as you would hope.

Also. Considering the % of women who voted for Trump vs Hillary, assuming women will vote for women, simply based on gender, is a misguided assumption. Most women hate other women.

But. I'm open to it, and they'll win California and New York, a long with the other blue states.

It's the swing states they will have to worry about. Which, I guess, is simply stating the obvious.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-20 03:59 PM | Reply

A two women ticket could potentially be overwhelming. You thinks blacks voted disproportionately for Obama? Wait til you see the percentage of women across the country who would support a female ticket headed by Warren. - #6 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-20 03:51 PM

Sorry for allowing reality to intrude in your fantasies:
Overall Women favored Biden over Trump 56.3 to 36.4 but favored Trump over Warren 47.4 to 44.2, a 10% shift.

orlando-politics.com

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 08:35 AM | Reply

I intend to read her plan.

I just think its funny Clinton was President and Biden pushed for the tough on crime bill of 1994

#9 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-21 12:13 PM | Reply

Just a few questions.

If people want drugs and it is decriminalized, is she going to want the govt to pay for rehab?

You're making it legal, like alcohol. Why are taxpayers on the hook. Granted, it has to be cheaper to deal with rehab costs vs. Prison costs.

After she fixes the drug imprisonment disparity, what is next to be legalized to get more criminals out of jail?

Why not go for max years? As a union steward, mgmt aimed high and I aimed low to negotiate the middle. That's why you aim high, to negotiate to a proper number. I wish prosecutors could start fairly...low. But what is fair will be fought to be reduced. That's what defenders do...seek less punishment. As a steward, I had to fight fir less, even when the starting offer was fair. I violated my oath if I didn't.

#10 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-21 12:24 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#9: I agree with you Petrous. Warren's position on criminal justice is FAR superior to that of Clinton or Biden. Biden is a centrist and he makes no bones about it. Warren is a progressive.

#10: From a financial/tax point of view, money spent on rehab is always far more effective than money spent on incarceration. But there is a side of human nature that desires to punish those around us who do not behave as our authoritarian natures want them to behave.

#10: Your critical point about plea bargaining is also well taken. Having been involved with thousands (maybe over ten thousand) plea bargains over the last 30 years, I agree that no matter what number the other side starts with, as a defense attorney I always aid to push lower. That is my duty to the individual client, even if on a more global scale I realize that occasionally the prosecutor is being fairly reasonable. That being said, ultimately it is the job of the judge to have the experience and knowledge to be able to fairly 'split the baby'.

So, basically, I agree with both your posts.

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-21 01:21 PM | Reply

For diversion:

I would like to see more minimum security-campus style prisons that focused on drug treatment, education, job skills, work release, to be used as a walk-in day resource center for those on ankle monitoring, therapy programs, anger and conflict management, and offer more transition support for those coming out of more secure prisons.

Give them an opportunity to join society or go back to prison for hard time.

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-22 02:27 PM | Reply

#10: From a financial/tax point of view, money spent on rehab is always far more effective than money spent on incarceration. But there is a side of human nature that desires to punish those around us who do not behave as our authoritarian natures want them to behave.

I said this on the SF thread, I agree and think that we should, as a condition of parole or a plea bargain, for first time offenders, require that they finish High School or even get an AA from a Junior College and give them a job (and rehab, if necessary), it would be cheaper than locking them up. If they complete their parole, give them the opportunity to effectively seal their record to eliminate the "felon" status.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-22 03:05 PM | Reply

Warren produces innovative ideas at the speed Trump promotes conspiracy theories.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-22 03:21 PM | Reply

"it would be cheaper than locking them up"

Why not just legalize drugs?
???

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-22 03:35 PM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY MODER8

I will third that based on representing criminal clients in drug proceedings.

Drug addiction isn't just a crime, it's a condition and needs to be treated as such. Meth especially.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-22 04:50 PM | Reply

I said this on the SF thread, I agree and think that we should, as a condition of parole or a plea bargain, for first time offenders, require that they finish High School or even get an AA from a Junior College and give them a job (and rehab, if necessary), it would be cheaper than locking them up. If they complete their parole, give them the opportunity to effectively seal their record to eliminate the "felon" status.

#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Nice seeing us agree on something. I'm not sure on AA. I'd be more open to even a training program for a certificate of some sort. We have many already set up throughout the country for young adults 16-20. Think Job Corp or Core or whatever it is.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-22 04:52 PM | Reply

I said this on the SF thread, I agree and think that we should, as a condition of parole or a plea bargain, for first time offenders, require that they finish High School or even get an AA from a Junior College and give them a job (and rehab, if necessary), it would be cheaper than locking them up. If they complete their parole, give them the opportunity to effectively seal their record to eliminate the "felon" status.

#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I couldn't agree more. Simply incarcerating offenders does nothing but breed angrier people with few options.

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-22 05:17 PM | Reply

It's really good policy. It's also too bad she hasn't got a chance and has only herself to blame. I could overlook the fake native American bit, if it at least opened her eyes to something like making affirmative action policies financially rather than racially based, but that bit of irony seems to have flown right by her. Add in that between support for open borders and healthcare for illegals Trump would chew her up and spit her out in debates, even if she beat him left right and center on policy, and it's not just me. She's not going to be able to secure the moderate vote. Why we can't have someone who's on the economic left but not constantly trying to play at identity politics is beyond me.

#19 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-08-22 06:30 PM | Reply

"I couldn't agree more. Simply incarcerating offenders does nothing but breed angrier people with few options."

Decriminalize drugs, and you can empty out most of the prisons. It's criminalization that makes the illicit drug markets lucrative. If it weren't, you wouldn't be locking people up for the manufacture, sale and use of drugs. Nor would you be locking up those who commit violent crimes in the support of manufacture, sales, and usage.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-23 11:02 AM | Reply

I had a drug user and very small time drug dealer who looked at the bright side of 3 years in jail as time to get clean.

But when you get out with no jobs options and all your friends have moved on, it's too easy to turn back to drugs as solace...and then to other crimes to pay for the drugs and other things.

For him and most it doesn't work.

They need actual treatment and integration with society not years behind bars. He needed options.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-23 01:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort