CLINTON v. OBAMA and McCAIN, TOO: Where Do They Stand On Crime?

by Robin Sax

Decision 2008 consumes television 24/7. From CNN to FOX to Comedy Central, it’s all election all the time. It is not the typical Republican vs. Democrat or Democrat vs. Republican mudslinging (at least not yet). For now it is all about who is going to take the Democratic party. Will it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Who will take on the Republicans? Who can beat John McCain?

Who knew that the primaries could be so exciting? It’s no wonder that the talking heads are talking their heads off. This is big stuff. It’s bigger than political parties. It’s bigger than gender, it’s bigger than race. It’s all of it in one election and then some. Will our country continue to break new ground in creating political history?

For most Americans, crime is a key issue. And no wonder. This is the day of missing (and dead) co-eds, cops who kill girlfriends and wives, students who shoot on college campuses, moms who drown their kids, and Internet sex scandals to name just a few. And if it were not for these elections these crime stories are what the pundits would be pontificating about.

So, what is Barack’s stance on crime? What is Hillary’s platform? Just how conservative is John McCain? I, myself, had no clue until I began writing this article. I could tell you their differences on the economy, health care, the war, and immigration, but have not heard a thing about crime.

Granted, crime is not usually the defining issue in the primaries. But with the election in only 223 days wouldn’t you like to know what your candidate thinks about gun control, sex offenders, Three Strikes, juvenile crimes, drugs, defendant’s rights, and gangs? I certainly would. For now we are supposed to be satiated with a few throwaway sound bites. And why do we have to wait until it’s McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton, to know which candidate wants to take a bite out of crime?

Clinton has been described as more prosecution oriented and leans toward more law and order than her counterpart Obama. According to Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle, “The two differ on crime-related issues that have a lower profile but affect many thousands of prisoners, most of them minorities - the disparity between sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, and the merits of federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. On both, Clinton lines up with the prosecution, Obama with the defense.” Interestingly, both favor capital punishment, in certain circumstances.

So here’s where they stand on crime:

ISSUE	CLINTON	OBAMA	MCCAIN
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT	Supports death penalty but has tilted her campaign to focus on Innocence Protection Act to divert attention away from her support of capital punishment by legislating that all people executed would participate in DNA testing.	Believes death penalty does little to deter crime, but there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--that warrant it. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated.	Supports the most broadened use of the death penalty. Has voted “YES” to limit death penalty appeals.
GUN CONTROL	Supports sensible gun control legislation. In her words: “We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.”	Respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. In 2000, co-sponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.	Believes that the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. “We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens," he said. "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law- abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.”
DRUGS	Favors a distinction between crack and powder cocaine in order to minimize racist impact of current laws. No retroactive application.	Favors a lower sentencing guideline for crack-related crimes, and bring them closer to sentences for powder cocaine. Favors applying the new terms retroactively to current prisoners. Wants to establish a DEA office in New Orleans to stop drugs along that region.	Wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said the Clinton administration was “AWOL on the war on drugs” and he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.
REPEAT OFFENDER SENTENCING	Believes mandatory sentencing is too widely used. Thinks we need more diversion programs. But supports "Three Strikes" laws, particularly for violent offenders.	Seeks to promote fairness in the criminal justice system. Wants to ban racial profiling, eliminate disparities in criminal sentencing.	Stricter sentencing for repeat and violent offenders.
GANGS	Hillary was one of 44 Democrats who voted for the anti-gang bill—increased penalty for gang association.	Voted against anti-gang bill due to concern about racist effects of its use. Therefore, no extra penalty for gang association.	Supports programs that provide job training and placement services for at-risk youth.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS	Spend more money on programs to help identify and work with “at risk” kids. Need more hotlines and workers to identify early warning signs for homicidal or suicidal kids.	Wants to provide funding for military-style "boot camps" for first-time juvenile felons.	Supports prosecuting more children as adults who commit violent crimes. Believes in increased penalties for crimes committed on school grounds. Believes in prosecuting youths accused (unless extremely young) of a felony as adults.
HATE CRIMES	Clinton sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Under this act the government would provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any violent crime that is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of hate crime laws.	Wants to strengthen the enforcement of hate crimes legislation.	McCain agrees that funding should be increased for community policing programs. “Increases should be implemented with state and local government commitments,” he says. With regard to “hate crimes”: “All but 13 states have hate crimes statutes. Federalizing all such crimes will simply obstruct justice by forcing them into clogged federal courts.”
SEX CRIMES	Favors a national coordinated effort of the Amber Alert. Supports stricter sentences for sex offenders.	Supported bills with greater restrictions on sex offenders.	McCain sponsored the Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act Establish a national database at the FBI to track each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or a sexually violent offense; or is a sexually violent predator.
DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS	Mandatory sentencing has been too widely used. Clinton says: “We have to do all of these things:  We do have to go after racial profiling. I've supported legislation to try to tackle that.  We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.  We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”	Believes in legislation to videotape defendant interrogations and confessions. Wants to recruit more and better public defenders by initiating loan forgiveness programs	Supports programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released. Supports programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.

So, what does this mean? If crime is YOUR one and only issue, then McCain is your man, but not by much. Neither Clinton nor Obama are soft on crime. But in the end, as a fellow blogger Jeralyn on Talk Left said, “To say Obama is more progressive on crime issues or that he takes the defense line while Hillary toes the prosecution line, is not accurate. Neither one is particularly progressive or defense oriented. Their minor differences are just that, minor.” The ultimate question is, will any of the nominees turn into a president that will pave the way as a leader in crime and punishment? That, ladies and gentleman, remains to be seen.

*Update: See Cynthia Hunt's post on Republican V.P. nominee Sarah Palin's stance on crime: http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/09/republicans-rock-star-barracuda-cut-her.html

Tweet

All is Fair in Love, War, and Politics . . . including Murder

by Pat Brown

On that fateful day of March in 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, the Roman "dictator for life," met his stunning demise: assassination by just about every one of his colleagues. Every one, that is, except Mark Antony, his right-hand man. Antony was outside the Senate building involved in a “long enough” conversation. It is said that the conspirators purposely distracted Antony so that he would not take his seat next to Caesar and thereby interfere with the assassination.

I guess it was possible for sixty men to plot against Caesar without Antony getting wind of it. (It is said Caesar heard rumors but because his health was not all that good, he simply didn’t care to fight back – a form of suicide by “closing one’s eyes to danger.”) Perhaps it was true Caesar did not care much for his life at that point--he was fifty-eight--but if Caesar knew something of the plot and ignored the rumblings out of exhaustion or arrogance, then it is hard to believe that Mark Antony was totally in the dark about the conspiracy. It is a stretch to believe Antony would blithely allow himself to be chatted up by Caesar’s guard whilst the leader of the country was being stabbed to death just a few yards away.

Not much has changed in 2000 years. One cannot necessarily take what one sees and hears at face value. As I sat watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the course of the recent months, I noted how they trade barbs and then compliments and then barbs and then more compliments. I thought how superficial were both the positive and negative comments, that neither carried any definitive level of “truth,” and as soon as one of these candidates wins the Democratic nomination, we will see a new and total “respect” surface between Clinton and Obama as one assumes the role of Presidential candidate and the other is selected as his or her running mate. But just because they become running mates does not mean the one who ends up as Vice President on the Democratic ticket might not wish the presidential candidate to disappear from the picture at some point in time.

Politics attracts egomaniacs who want to win at all costs and, quite often, any appearance of humility or cooperation is merely a requirement of survival rather than any real sense of decency or fairness. In other words, actions speak louder than words. When someone is back stabbed, or as happened on the 15th of March that day in Rome - truly stabbed in the back (and just about every other part of the body), we may not get clarity as to the true motive behind the crime without doing a bit of serious analysis of previous behaviors of those involved, especially when it comes to achieving their desires in life. In analyzing the murder of Julius Caesar, we should ask, “Who truly had the most to gain by his death and whose behavior raises red flags?” The answer is, unquestionably, Mark Antony.

While many might gain something from Caesar’s death, two men had quite a bit more to gain: the very young Octavian, nephew to Caesar, who was to inherit his fortune and his position (but prior to death of Caesar even Octavian had no inkling he was to be his heir), and, Caesar's top general, Mark Antony, who may well have thought he himself would inherit Caesar’s fortune and position. Mark Antony was at that age of now or never, a man just over the age of forty, and if Caesar lived, then Antony was doomed to a subservient role for the rest of his life. Every year that ticked by would increase Octavian’s age, power, and relationship with Caesar while Antony would steadily continue to lose more and more ground as he aged.

So, there Mark Antony stood while Caesar was being stabbed to death, an "innocent man unaware of what was happening inside the Senate building." When the deed was done, Antony gave an impassioned speech on the terrible loss of Rome’s great leader and then he hurried on to have Caesar’s will read.

What a shock it must have been when Antony heard Octavian’s name read and watched as “his” country was effectively handed over to that hardly-of-age upstart! No doubt Octavian knew Mark Antony was not terribly happy over this turn of events, and, if Antony was not nearly so ignorant of the plot to kill Caesar, he would always be a threat to Octavian.

Sure enough, Octavian and Antony eventually had their showdown. Rome was doomed to get its "king"; it just remained to be seen which one would be left standing alone. In the end, it was Octavian.

Will there be an Ides of March (figuratively speaking one would hope) in the next U.S. election? It will be a fascinating year of politics and history may repeat itself in our country in some form or fashion. Rome and Washington DC may not be so far apart in either political thinking or time as we think. Beware the Ides of March, my fellow countrymen, and cast your votes well!

Tweet