Crime began going down in the 1990s. Did the crime bill help or accelerate the decrease in crime. Seems like something Washington finally got right.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

One thing that was never good was the distinction made between crack vs cocaine consequences, and how the elite always got off lightly by comparison for a similar drug crime. This is a notorious point of activist blacks that has some resonance, do believe. Its one of those things that it is unclear if it is really so, but the outlines suggest it enough. Notice how many of the politicos and Hollywooders routinely associated with cocaine, and not in jail, but that is not true of the inner city.

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

titan said:

---

One thing that was never good was the distinction made between crack vs cocaine consequences, and how the elite always got off lightly by comparison for a similar drug crime. This is a notorious point of activist blacks that has some resonance, do believe. Its one of those things that it is unclear if it is really so, but the outlines suggest it enough. Notice how many of the politicos and Hollywooders routinely associated with cocaine, and not in jail, but that is not true of the inner city.

---

I guess Joe always assumed Hunter would get caught with cocaine

F2Aggie said:

---

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

---

Hmm. How did that operate? Railroading because couldn't afford good defense?

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

This statement is the ultimate racism today. If you ask a dem, it is because the system is racist and POCs are targeted by the police, and more harshly punished by the courts. It has zero to do with crimes being committed, and everything to do with systemic racism keeping them down.

The big drop off in the 90s is more closely associated with concealed carry laws. To a state, crime plummeted once the population was more likely to be armed. The risk of robbing somebody now included that victim being armed.

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

So jailing blacks for non-violent crime is now progressive?

Wut. Idk if this is sarcasm?

F2Aggie said:

---

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

---

Yeah that provision that allowed minorities to be locked for simply being a minority was a little over the top. But crimes did go down, so maybe ends justify the means?

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

Yes, this is a dumb issue that is making all sides out to be hypocrites. Republicans are trying to use it to beat up the current Democrat candidates at their own SJW game. But by embracing the "rules" of the Left, the Right is selling out the moral and policy high ground on law enforcement.

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country.

---

The economic growth that started in the 1980's was the reason crime rates dropped in the 1990s. Crime was already trending down when the bill became law.

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

Economics is the #1 driver of a person's likelihood of committing a crime, not their race. Let's not make this something it's not. A disproportionate portion of black Americans live in government enforced poverty hence they commit more crimes. So what drives economics in black lives? The absence of men in the lives of their children.

unmade bed said:

---

F2Aggie said:

---

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

---

Yeah that provision that allowed minorities to be locked for simply being a minority was a little over the top. But crimes did go down, so maybe ends justify the means?

---

It's interesting to watch the parties reverse course and flop a bit.

The bill was certainly effective in keeping people in jail longer I imagine from would be recidivist staying locked up. Comes with a cost though.





Land of the free? It's not all apples to apples but we are doing CJ wrong.

Roster4Ag said:

---

Wut. Idk if this is sarcasm?

---

I'm saying that conservatives are on the right side of this issue. We have the highest incarceration rates in the world for non-violent crime.

Yes, crime did go down but you have to ask yourself: what does incarcerating people for drugs do for society long-term? Think they can get a good job? No. Think they will continue to commit crimes? Yes. The drug war has been an utter failure. Trump understands this and is taking a different approach to truly lifting people up!

We have got to get smarter about drug crime because throwing people in jail just exasperates the problem. Like a good Democrat, Joe just treated the symptom and not the problem. It was not a mature, thought out policy and he should be hammered for it.

The government found that it could take the rights away from large groups of citizens through legislation in 1984. It usurped the State's powers and criminalized youth by creating a national drinking age of 21. This was done through highway legislation? Two years later, the government targeted minorities and women to fill the prisons with the 1986 Drug Abuse Act. (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/womensfoundationofca/bias_behind_bars.pdf)

Both of these laws were passed for political reasons, i.e. getting re-elected. Instead of admitting their own laws were to blame for angry minority communities, they passed the 1994 crime bill. Here we are now.

As the fabric of society has deliberately disintegrated thanks to the Dems 'great society' programs, it's inevitably true we need to imprison more, and be harsher toward crime. But, now that they need blacks to vote for them more than ever, they want to distinguish crime based on race, which is both overtly racist and hypocritical.

I think their real problem is they've run out of 'Episcopalian liberals.' Essential wasp coastal elites don't have the numbers they used to. But sanctioning riots/looting is...a poor plan to win a national plurality, imho.

F2Aggie said:

---

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

---

Then why were they in jail?

LOYAL AG said:

---

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

Economics is the #1 driver of a person's likelihood of committing a crime, not their race. Let's not make this something it's not. A disproportionate portion of black Americans live in government enforced poverty hence they commit more crimes. So what drives economics in black lives? The absence of men in the lives of their children.

---

This is false. All you have to do is look at the Great Depression. Being poor doesn't make people commit more crime, culture does and factors like drug and alcohol abuse as well as lack fo growing up with 2 loving parents. There is no magic solution though.

As to the OP, the issue with the '94 Crime Bill was it was a blunt instrument that had a lot of unintended consequences. The main issue being that it heavily impacted people who had only committed non-violent crimes without focusing on violent crimes. The secondary issue was that it shifted away from providing a path to getting people a second chance or looking at the prison population in a realistic manner. For instance, most people in jail will eventually be let out so it is very much in our interest as a society to figure out how to make them into productive citizens that won't commit more crime. The point about dropping the hammer on crack but going light on cocaine was another flaw.

So in the end both sides are playing politics of course. The Democrats in '94 went along with it because they thought it gave them cover. Republicans were all in favor of it in '94 but have since become a lot less "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" now and are actively trying to appeal to the minority vote.

BTW, a really great listen was Jared Kushner going on the Sunday Special with Ben Shapiro last weekend. He talked about many things and this was one. His perspective as a guy that grew up a rich liberal essentially and had his father put in prison for white collar crimes that opened his eyes to the prison system and how we should look at reforming it was very insightful. His approach to this and so many other issues (like ME Peace) was so unconventional but has paid off huge. That was the first time I had really just listened to him for an hour, really impressive guy and I understand why Trump relies on him.

Adding to what 93 said:

1. There is the question of the efficacy of the war on drugs. Does prohibition ever work? What makes someone wake up one fine morning and decide to use heroine, crack or meth?

2. The sentencing guidelines punished crack ("black drug") much harsher than it punished coke ("white drug"). A pound of cocaine was punished the same as a pound of crack, even though the pure coke is far, far more potent. It would be like punishing an ounce of beer the same as an ounce of pure grain alcohol. Black drug dealers were far more impacted, generally speaking.

There is no way an honest person can say that the law is fair across the board.


3. Most drug dealers retire in their 30s. The street life is too harsh and stressful. So, dude would get popped for a second offense in his mid 20s and get sent away forever, even though he only had ~10 years left in his career. We now have prisons chock full of middle aged men who are no longer threats to society. Their children have grown up without fathers and suffered all the problems that come along. Had they been released at 35, most would have worked some kind of job. At a minimum, they would not have cost $30k/year to lock up. At a minimum, they would have cared for the kids while baby momma went to work. It costs a hell of a lot more to lock a man up than for him to work some basic job and collect $300/month in food stamps.

The damage done to the black community will take generations to repair.

4. Liberal Activists did not like how Clinton and both parties sold the crime bill: they preyed on fear, especially white and middle-class black fear. They used terms like "superpredator." They made no effort to understand the dynamics in the inner city that caused the drug epidemic.

The liberals are correct. The politicians used race-baiting to pass the bill. We are all a little prejudiced, and they took advantage of it. That is part of the reason hardleft and center-left democrats are in a civil war.


Newt Gingrich even said the crime bill was a disaster, way after he was retired.

Obviously, there are bigger problems. I am of the opinion that the great society programs destroyed families, especially black ones. The drugs were just a result.

I am also of the opinion that prohibition is bound to fail. Think about it. Who uses hard drugs? Not talking about pot, or some mushrooms once in Colorado. Someone messed up to begin tries hard drugs like heroine/crack/meth. Usually they are messed up b/c they grew up in a broken home, were abused and/or molested, and have low self-worth.

Look at stats of child molestation victims. A child in a single-parent home is something like 30x more liklely to get molested.

Now, go look at people incarcerated. Most of them did not have fathers in their lives. There is an anecdote;

Hallmark donates the holiday cards that dont sell to inmates. On Mother's Day, all the cards get taken and sent off. On father's day, most of the cards do not get touched.

Dan Scott said:

---

Crime began going down in the 1990s. Did the crime bill help or accelerate the decrease in crime. Seems like something Washington finally got right.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

---

If you believe those that support the genocide of black babies they will say crime went down because of abortion.

This is false. All you have to do is look at the Great Depression. Being poor doesn't make people commit more crime, culture does and factors like drug and alcohol abuse as well as lack fo growing up with 2 loving parents. There is no magic solution though.


What my mom, who was a child of the Depression, always said, We didn't have anything, no one did, and we weren't committing crimes.

Supposedly they were all out playing "Midnight basketball"! Or so the mantra was at the time.

That last part is key, though. "No one did". Nobody had anything. Everyone was poor.
Recent research shows that relative disparity predicts crime not absolute disparity. The predictive/explanatory power of these studies is very weak, but scholars make a big deal out of everything they find.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

Economics is the #1 driver of a person's likelihood of committing a crime, not their race. Let's not make this something it's not. A disproportionate portion of black Americans live in government enforced poverty hence they commit more crimes. So what drives economics in black lives? The absence of men in the lives of their children.

---

I agree with you, and so the real issue was and is the LBJ war on poverty which led to the break-up of the Black nuclear family.

There are a lot of things missing here. First, the crime bill, as it was presented in 1994, was sort of a joke. It came about during Hillary Care and the mantra was, we had a so-called health care plan that criminalized people and a crime bill that provided health care (or something like that). The legislation was packed full of pork and paybacks to Clinton and democrat cronies who weren't already enriched by the so-called stimulus (a term used to funnel money in thanks for getting democrats elected and nothing more). I think to get the bill passed, they HAD to include SOME measures in there that made sense in terms of criminal sanctions but don't think for a minute that that was their primary goal.

Second, while the FEDERAL bill did have increased sanctions for drug and other FEDERAL offenses, most people incarcerated are there for STATE offenses. This bill may have encouraged a few states to pass their own bills but I don't think many did. Thus, any effects of incarceration can't totally be explained by the 1994 bill itself. SOME are, to be sure, but not all.

Finally, as with the mentioned midnight basketball, there was a LOT of stupid stuff in here. Not just that kind of stuff but the assault weapons ban. One good thing is that it (in part) led to a wave of concealed permit legislation around the country. The other thing is that it proved that gun control legislation wasn't going to affect either gun purchases as a whole or that the increase in gun purchases was going to have an adverse affect on crime as we saw a marked decrease in crime in the next 2 decades.

Pelayo said:

---

Land of the free? It's not all apples to apples but we are doing CJ wrong.

---

Yep. We need to increase our number of executions and get people off death row.

And as far as effectiveness and crime deterrence, I can't say enough good about beheadings.

Most crimes are committed by young males, and most of those crimes are actually related in some way to obtaining greater social status amongst some peer group or in some hierarchy, when you look at data. It's about obtaining greater visible wealth, status in peer groups, social status generally, and usually this crime is amongst the more numerous poor with fewer easier options to some type of status.

Greater disparity tends to increase this type of crime. The poor young male is less attractive to females and has less status regarding wealth and civil society, so they seek status amongst peers in a hierarchy of reputation. The perception of insurmountable differential in wealth and status obtainable by wealth seems to drive more poor young males into violent status seeking crimes.

Sadly, this seems to happen across time and across societies and various social structures, so it is likely something behaviorally inherent to humans and a challenge for shy human society.

Pelayo said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

F2Aggie said:

---

People of color went to jail bc of the crime bill that is the problem with the bill.

Not bc they were actually committing crime

---

Yeah that provision that allowed minorities to be locked for simply being a minority was a little over the top. But crimes did go down, so maybe ends justify the means?

---

It's interesting to watch the parties reverse course and flop a bit.

The bill was certainly effective in keeping people in jail longer I imagine from would be recidivist staying locked up. Comes with a cost though.





Land of the free? It's not all apples to apples but we are doing CJ wrong.

---

That's way higher than our COVID death rate yet people still carry illegal drugs around

aggie93 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Roster4Ag said:

---

The bill lead to one of the largest drop offs in crime in the history of the country. The bill was asked for specifically by minorities in the inner city, and those same minorities specifically lobbied for a tougher sentencing for crack. More pocs went to jail because they commit more crime. The only part of the bill that was bad was the assault weapons act in the bill, which is stupid. Overall, the bill was a resounding success.

This is one of those issues that i don't understand why the right is turning around. The only possible explanation is that they're pandering for black votes. What makes it even more troubling is that blacks are receptive to a message that stopping crime = bad.

---

Economics is the #1 driver of a person's likelihood of committing a crime, not their race. Let's not make this something it's not. A disproportionate portion of black Americans live in government enforced poverty hence they commit more crimes. So what drives economics in black lives? The absence of men in the lives of their children.

---

This is false.

---

How do you explain these numbers:

2009 - 3,805,440 (28%)
2010 - 3,655,210 (28%)
2011 - 3,474,350 (28%)
2012 - 3,420,690 (28%)
2013 - 3,173,490 (28%)
2014 - 3,114,810 (28%)
2015 - 2,875,140 (27%)
2016 - 2,863,810 (27%)
2017 - 2,870,440 (27%)
2018 - 2,826,460 (27%)

Those numbers represent the total number of black arrest for the ten most recent years on record. The percentages equal the portion of total arrests regardless of race. What happened from 2009 to 2018? As the economy improved black arrest numbers declined 26% yet the portion of total arrests that were black remaining nearly constant.

I put those numbers together a couple of weeks ago from DOJ statistics found here:

CRIME STATS BY RACE

So if not economics then what?

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

Land of the free? It's not all apples to apples but we are doing CJ wrong.

---

Yep. We need to increase our number of executions and get people off death row.

And as far as effectiveness and crime deterrence, I can't say enough good about beheadings.

---

How very Muslim of you.

Pelayo said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

Land of the free? It's not all apples to apples but we are doing CJ wrong.

---

Yep. We need to increase our number of executions and get people off death row.

And as far as effectiveness and crime deterrence, I can't say enough good about beheadings.

---

How very Muslim of you.

---

I did grow up in Saudi Arabia where there's essentially no crime because the penalties are too harsh.

Taking murder rate for example, KSA comes in at 1.5, USA comes in at 5.35. it works.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

I don't trust government at any level with that degree of power. Plenty of corrupt police & DAs

Crack has more weight than powdered cocaine due to it being cut with other substances to make the rocks. Thus the stiffer penalties for possession of crack vs. blow. I believe crack was rated on a higher schedule than blow thus the higher severity of charges. The drug laws are Definitely targeted towards the lower class, can't have politicians kids going to club fed for a little bit of booger sugar.