but didn't our violent crime rate go way down under clinton's tough rule....with putting more cops on the streets as he promised and with his 3 strikes yur out rule....keeping 3 time offenders of violent crimes from seeing the light of day out of prison, ever again?
The 3 stikes law is one reason why America has 25% of all the world's prisoners. MOST of those convicted under this law are NOT violent criminals.
The frist person convicted under this law was a guy named Larry Fisher. Fisher's crime, after two prior felony convictions, was holding up a sandwich shop for $151. Fisher's first felony conviction was in 1986, for stealing $360 from his own grandfather. His second strike was stealing less than $100 from a pizza parlor. Should this guy go to jail? Absolutely. But should he go to jail for life? Absolutely not.
A much more fair and just "firm but fair" policy is that of assigning points to specific crimes. But Clinton was interested in his image not what's fair.
Clinton’s enthusiastic support for the death penalty is the crown jewel of the Democratic Party’s "get-tough-on-crime" laws, including life imprisonment for a third felony offense and tougher sentencing for youth offenders. Clinton-sponsored legislation greatly expanded the number of federal crimes punishable by death and accelerated the number of executions at the state level. In the six years that Clinton has been president, more than 315 people have been executed in the United States. In the entire 12 years of the conservative Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, 185 people were put to death. From 1997-1999, record numbers were executed. In 1997, 74 people were executed, the largest number of executions in a single year since 1956. Sixty-eight death-row prisoners were killed in 1998.
In 1996, Democrats outdid themselves in passing Clinton’s Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This law limits habeas corpus appeals for death-row inmates to one within a year after conviction. It sets up arbitrary time limits for filing appeals, and it forces the federal Courts to essentially rubber stamp the state courts’ decisions. Since inmates often cannot find counsel or take years to do so, the law means that many death-row inmates will not be able to find help for their appeals in time. Moreover, inmates often aren’t able to uncover evidence that might prove a wrongful conviction or their innocence within a year.
Today, through DNA evidence, the Innocence Project, the Sentencing Project, and many others, we know that many who sit on death row are innocent of the crimes they're accused of. Today, getting off death row because new evidence proves one not guilty is not an anomaly.
Additionally, Clinton KNEW of the disparity in arrests and sentencing. He KNEW of the prosecutions zeal to lock up non-whites and even trump up evidence to do so. None of that factored into his zeal to prove himself "tough on crime."
Tough on crime at what price? Becoming essentially a nation of prisoners surpassing all totalitarian states? Locking up people who may be innocent to boost the records of prosecutors?
Is America so violent and unlawful that having 25% of all thge world's prisoners seem correct or make any sense whatsoever?
THis has far more to do with politics and the image of politicians than it does with the lawless nature of Americans.
