It is at once a blessing and a curse that presidential politics energizes voters who aren’t otherwise politically engaged but whose grasp of the distinction between politics and governance may be a little tenuous.
That’s played out in obvious ways during the Republican primary season. On the Democratic side, it has been seen in the outrageous assertions about Hillary Clinton’s responsibility for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
At a campaign event in Philadelphia on Wednesday, a group of protesters identifying themselves as associated with #BlackLivesMatter demanded that Clinton pledge to issue presidential pardons to “all current and former federal prisoners unjustly convicted or sentenced as a result of the ’94 crime bill.”
Young supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid have criticized Clinton for supporting the ’94 bill, a major initiative of President Bill Clinton’s first term. As first lady, Hillary Clinton’s direct role was limited to making a few speeches.
The Sanders supporters can’t be too vocal because Sanders himself voted for the bill as a member of the U.S. House. Which illuminates the basic problem: Given what was happening in 1994, the crime bill wasn’t a bad idea. Parts of it had some unforeseen and unfortunate consequences, but other parts were very effective.
In 1994, the crack cocaine epidemic was ravaging American cities, particularly African-American neighborhoods. It was the fifth consecutive year that the FBI counted at least 23,000 murders; 20 years later, in 2014, the last year for which the FBI has a full count, there were 14,249.
In 1993, St. Louis had a record 267 homicides. Last year, with a similar turf war breaking out over heroin, the city recorded 188.
The part of the crime bill that paid for 100,000 more police officers, and mandated the use of community policing strategies, had something to do with the improvement in crime rates.
The crime bill contained the Violence Against Women Act. It contained an assault weapons ban that was full of loopholes and expired in 2004. It allowed the death penalty to be imposed for more federal crimes.
There were problematic outcomes, including $10 billion in prison-building grants to states that agreed to adopt tougher sentencing laws. It resulted in “mandatory minimum” sentences and “three strikes you’re out” laws. Missouri was among 28 states and the District of Columbia that took the bait.
Studies showed those measures had very little impact on crime and caused huge increases in incarceration rates, particularly among African-Americans and particularly for drug crimes. Federal and state governments, with support from conservative and liberal scholars alike, have begun rethinking the lock-’em-up/throw-away-the key approach.
Whatever the next president does about these issues, he or she will be second-guessed 22 years from now. Compared with governing, politics is easy.
———
©2016 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Visit the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at www.stltoday.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
