Discussion in 'Black People Politics' started by Liberty, Jan 24, 2016.
Maybe this is where the pedal hits the medal with the Democratic Candidates. What are your thoughts?
.....It only took Hillary Clinton six months after first calling for sweeping criminal justice reform and an end to mass incarceration for her to announce on Thursday that she would no longer accept direct donations from private prison lobbyists...
Clinton's decision reportedly came after a series of meetings with several minority advocacy groups that have been demanding that 2016 candidates address the excesses of America's sprawling criminal justice system, including mass incarceration, overcrowded jails, and poor prison conditions, among other issues.
Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC has received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA. That figure was slightly lower than the $133,450 Rubio's PACs and campaign have accepted from private prison companies or groups that lobby on their behalf.
We do need to go against these drug laws.
Let us agree to disagree that this suggest she's really on board as regards true reform of this nation's one sided and self serving so called war on drug dealers etc.
We also have to remember our relations didn't create this crisis...
Not sure what you mean. You say "she", and that is actually Bernie Sanders. Nonetheless, my position has changed slightly. I am still voting for Sanders, but I don't think he will be as effective as I had wished. (see below)
Bernie Sanders' Plan to Fight Mass Incarceration Doesn't Add Up
Bernie Sanders is pledging big things when it comes to criminal justice reform, vowing that by the end of his first term as president the nation would no longer be the world leader in incarceration:
I promise at the end of my first term we won't have more people in jail than in any other country.
11:54 AM - 11 Dec 2015
2,110 2,110 Retweets
5,900 5,900 likes
But, as racial-justice activist Deray McKesson pointed out in response, Sanders' promise raises a serious question: Is that even possible, considering that the vast majority of the nation's inmates are held in state, not federal, prisons?
The Sanders campaign did not respond to multiple requests for an explanation, but the short answer is that the Democratic candidate couldn't realistically fulfill his promise. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 2.2 million Americans were locked up as of the end of 2013. Of those, only 215,000 inmates (9.6 percent) were in federal prisons. The rest were in state and local facilities. So even if President Sanders abolished federal prisons altogether, the United States would still have more prisoners than any other country by a pretty large margin. China, which is No. 2 in the world, has 1.7 million prisoners. To edge below China, Sanders would need to cut the national prison population by about 25 percent, with most of that coming from places that are outside federal jurisdiction.
I have nothing more to add to my recent comments...
Guess he didn't realize the only way to do that is to start killing people instead of locking them up like they do in those other nations like China.
Separate names with a comma.