4 ms·

My impression is that in this case it's a state issue. The 3 strikes law is a local decision. That doesn't change the game theory aspect of everyone chasing th

My impression is that in this case it's a state issue. The 3 strikes law is a local decision. That doesn't change the game theory aspect of everyone chasing their own interest, and a small minority who cares a ton about an issue over-riding a majority who only cares a little. (Prison owners know 100% they'll benefit, while most of the rest of us assume we won't have 3 strikes against us)

btilly 11y ago
It is both a state and federal issue. In 1994, Bill Clinton passed a crime omnibus bill (with Hillary Clinton advocating for it) which established a federal 3 strikes provision. Separately a number of states passed their own 3 strikes provisions. It is easier to hit 3 strikes under local law than federal so local bills put more in prison. But the Clintons now acknowledge that their bill is responsible for a big chunk of the increase in mass incarceration, particularly for blacks. Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation. For the record, Bernie Sanders voted for the exact same legislation, despite giving lots of speeches denouncing mass incarceration. However his voting record shows that he began voting against increased punishment in 1999. So both flipped, but Sanders did so much earlier.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation. To add to this, there was actually a huge groundswell of support from black communities in the 90s for toughening enforcement of (and punishment for) crime, including drug-related crime. In retrospect, the policies were a complete disaster at achieving their original goals, but it's rather frustrating that the 2016 dialogue completely ignores the context in which those laws emerged. Yes, 90s-era crime laws are largely responsible for mass incarceration of black Americans today. But it's not quite correct to portray the decision in the 90s to support those laws as a political decision against black Americans. At the time, it was perceived by many black advocacy groups to be the necessary response to the devastating effects that crime was having on their communities.

btilly 11y ago

It is both a state and federal issue. In 1994, Bill Clinton passed a crime omnibus bill (with Hillary Clinton advocating for it) which established a federal 3 strikes provision. Separately a number of states passed their own 3 strikes provisions. It is easier to hit 3 strikes under local law than federal so local bills put more in prison. But the Clintons now acknowledge that their bill is responsible for a big chunk of the increase in mass incarceration, particularly for blacks. Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation. For the record, Bernie Sanders voted for the exact same legislation, despite giving lots of speeches denouncing mass incarceration. However his voting record shows that he began voting against increased punishment in 1999. So both flipped, but Sanders did so much earlier.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation. To add to this, there was actually a huge groundswell of support from black communities in the 90s for toughening enforcement of (and punishment for) crime, including drug-related crime. In retrospect, the policies were a complete disaster at achieving their original goals, but it's rather frustrating that the 2016 dialogue completely ignores the context in which those laws emerged. Yes, 90s-era crime laws are largely responsible for mass incarceration of black Americans today. But it's not quite correct to portray the decision in the 90s to support those laws as a political decision against black Americans. At the time, it was perceived by many black advocacy groups to be the necessary response to the devastating effects that crime was having on their communities.