Monday March 30, 2020
Home Lead Story Trump Secures...

Trump Secures The Higher Ground On Criminal Justice Issues in 2020 Campaign

Democratic candidates are being forced to disavow criminal justice policies they once championed

0
//
Al Sharpton, center, with demonstrators during a silent march to end the "stop-and-frisk" program in New York. During the Bloomberg administration, civil rights groups went to court to end the NYPD's use of a tactic known as "stop and frisk," which involved detaining, questioning and sometimes searching people deemed suspicious by officers. VOA

Bloomberg is the latest Democratic candidate forced to reckon with a criminal justice policy record that critics view as too punitive to minorities.

As he prepared to announce his candidacy for president on Sunday, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg took a page from an old political playbook.

Appearing in a black church in the city’s Brooklyn borough last week, the multi-billionaire media mogul apologized for long pushing a now-defunct policing tactic that had disproportionately targeted African American and Hispanic residents.

Known as “stop and frisk,” the controversial policy, imposed between 2003 and 2013, allowed New York City police to stop, temporarily detain, and search anyone suspected of carrying weapons and other contraband.

“I was wrong,” Bloomberg declared to the congregation. To those who had been wronged by the policy, he said, “I apologize.”

Criminal justice policy records

Former Vice President Joe Biden has been criticized for backing a 1994 crime bill that helped trigger a federal prison population explosion, while South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has faced questions over policing tactics in his hometown.

Others, including Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, have had to justify their law enforcement policies as a former mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and a California prosecutor, respectively.

That Democrats are under scrutiny over criminal justice issues is unusual. Historically, Democratic presidential candidates ran on platforms of civil rights and criminal justice reform while Republicans campaigned as tough law-and-order candidates, according to criminal justice experts.

Donald Trump on criminal justice
President Donald Trump speaks at the 2019 Prison Reform Summit and First Step Act Celebration in the East Room of the White House in Washington. VOA

But as the 2020 campaign enters the crucial primary phase, Democratic candidates are being forced to disavow criminal justice policies they once championed, while Republican President Donald Trump – who hardly discussed criminal justice in 2016 – is touting himself as a leading reform candidate.

Trump says he can make that claim because he signed into law a sweeping piece of legislation known as the First Step Act last December. The legislation, which has released or reduced the prison sentences of thousands of inmates convicted of drug offenses, has earned Trump praise from many African Americans.

“It’s sort of a switch in what people thought was the standard left-right divide,” said Noah Weinrich of Heritage Action for America, a conservative grassroots organization.

So what happened?

The short answer is the country has changed. The 1994 Crime Bill now under attack from liberals and African Americans was enacted during the Clinton administration, near the height of a violent crime epidemic in the country when heavy-handed policies enjoyed broad public support.

But as crime has steadily declined over the past two decades to historically low levels, support for those measures has eroded and politicians on both sides of the aisle have increasingly embraced overhaul proposals.

Behind the 1994 Crime Bill

Biden helped craft the legislation when he was a U.S. senator and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and now is taking heat for the legislation’s more onerous side effects.

“Today, crime and murder rates are at historic lows and American communities are safer than they have been in generations,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, acting director of the Justice Program at New York University’s Brennan Center. “That’s significant because that allows the bipartisan conversations about how to best reduce the number of people who have been incarcerated.”

To be sure, criminal justice reform is not among the most pressing concerns for voters who care more about issues such as health care, immigration and jobs, according to polling.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore Demand Criminal Justice
President Bill Clinton signs the $30 billion crime bill during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. Looking on, from left: Vice President Al Gore; House Majority Whip David Bonior of Mich.; Stephen Sposato, whose wife was killed by a gunman invaded the San Francisco law firm where she worked; Rep. Bill Richardson, D-N.M. and Marc Klass, whose daughter Polly was kidnapped and killed. VOA

But public support for measures, such as eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, has been on an upswing in recent years. That has prompted not only the large field of Democratic candidates but also the Republican president to campaign on criminal justice issues. Today, instead of incarceration, politicians increasingly talk about rehabilitation and redemption.

“Now we’re at a point in the country where we’re looking at our criminal justice system and saying maybe sentencing is what we need to think about and how do we best get our nonviolent criminals back into being productive members of society,” veteran Republican strategist David Avella said.

Last December, growing bipartisanship for criminal justice reform culminated in the enactment of the First Step Act.

Considered the most sweeping overhaul in a generation, the First Step Act allows for the early release of some nonviolent offenders, while providing inmates with in-prison job training to ease their reintegration into society and reduce recidivism rates. To date, more than 3,000 prisoners have been released and nearly 1,700 others have received sentence reductions under the program.

“Last year we brought the whole country together to achieve a truly momentous milestone,” Trump said last month at the historically black Benedict College in South Carolina, where he received an award for signing into law the First Step Act. “They said it couldn’t be done.”

Trump was an unlikely champion of the bill. When he first ran for president in 2016, he was seen as an obstacle to reform.

While his platform was notably silent on the issue, he consistently pushed for tough-on-crime policies over the decades, advocating lengthy sentences for violent offenders and effusing about New York City’s stop-and-frisk policies.

Then, after he was elected in 2016, Trump appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior White House adviser. Given a broad policy platform, Kushner zeroed in on an issue that he said was very close to his heart: prison reform.

Kushner’s father imprisoned

His father, real estate developer Charles Kushner, spent 14 months in a federal prison in the 2000s for illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. Jared Kushner later called his father’s incarceration “obviously unjust.”

“When I had my personal experience, I wish that there was somebody who was in my office in the White House, who cared about this issue as much as I do, and if they’d been focused on it in making a difference, perhaps that would have made an impact on a lot of people who I came to meet and care about,” he told CNN’s Van Jones, a prominent African American advocate of the First Step Act, last year.

Kusner Brafman on Criminal Justice
Charles Kushner, left, walks to the U.S. District Courthouse with his lawyers Benjamin Brafman, right, and Alfred C. DeCotiis, center, in Newark, N.J. Kushner is expected to plead guilty to charges stemming from a witness tampering scheme. VOA

Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy organization that lobbied for the legislation, said Kushner played an indispensable role in championing the bill and that Trump deserves credit for signing it into law.

“No one would have thought four years ago or three years ago that President Trump would have signed a law like that,” Ring said. “Everyone would have been skeptical that he would have supported any reform. So because he did it, I see no reason not to celebrate that.”

But Democratic candidates were in no mood to celebrate Trump’s action. They have denounced other Trump administration policy decisions that they say have set back years of progress on criminal justice. These include the Justice Department’s recent decision to resume federal executions.

ALSO READ: Here’s How Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Impacts The World

“I find it hypocritical of him to tout whatever advances have been made in the First Step Act given his history,” Democratic candidate Harris said at the Bipartisan Justice Center event after Trump received the award.

Harris, who had initially opposed the First Step Act for not going far enough to address criminal justice reform before voting for it, has faced criticism for not embracing criminal justice reform when she was San Francisco’s top prosecutor and later California’s attorney general. (VOA)

Next Story

Here’s What Can Happen if U.S. Declares Novel Coronavirus a National Emergency

The emergency measures raise constitutional questions

0
USA
Last year, Trump was criticized for declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to finance construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Pixabay

With the World Health Organization classifying the global coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump announced late Wednesday a series of emergency measures, including an unprecedented 30-day suspension of all flights from Europe.

But Trump, who spoke from the Oval Office, stopped short of resorting to an even more dramatic measure urged by some members of Congress: a national emergency proclamation under the 1976 National Emergencies Act.

The administration already has declared the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency, giving local health officials greater flexibility to respond to the crisis.  A national emergency declaration would put a vast reservoir of additional powers at the president’s disposal by triggering sweeping authorities contained in more than 100 statutes, according to Elizabeth Goitein, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program.

“When a president declares an emergency declaration, he at that moment has access to all of the laws that say in a national emergency the president can do X, whether or not those powers relate to the emergency at hand,” Goitein said.

Some of the additional authorities allow for a “reasonable and very measured” response to an emergency, according to Goitein. For example, hospitals could receive regulatory waivers in order to set up off-site facilities.

At the same time, a national emergency declaration also empowers a president to take draconian measures in the name of national security. For example, a president could invoke a 1941 law to shut down the internet and even freeze people’s bank accounts.

Last year, Trump was criticized for declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to finance construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

A national emergency declaration can only be overturned by an act of Congress.   More than 30 national emergency declarations made over the past four decades remain in effect.

Although presidents often have a legitimate need to exercise emergency powers, they’ve also faced criticism for using emergencies to curtail civil liberties and civil rights.

History of Mational Emergencies 

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln famously suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a guarantee against unlawful detentions. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt put more than 100,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps. And after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush expanded the government’s surveillance and other national security powers, some of which were later rolled back by Congress.

“The question will be in this moment, how far does the president go or the Congress go, and what is the fallout in the pushback,” said Kimberly Wehle, a visiting law professor at the American University Washington College of Law. “These are areas where the law isn’t clear.”

In addition to exercising emergency powers, the president has certain nonemergency powers he has used during the coronavirus crisis. For example, Trump invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 in suspending travel from Europe. Another non-emergency power Trump has exercised: the federal quarantine authority, which was last used in 1963.

“The president doesn’t have to declare an emergency in order to avail himself of that, but we know the president has already done that,” Goitein said.

Locking down communities or otherwise restricting the movements of large groups can conflict with constitutional rights of due process, according legal scholars.

“The due process clause basically says the government can’t restrict your liberty, which would be your ability to move around without some kind of process,” Wehle said. “That’s the first constitutional provision that will come to mind if we’re talking about quarantining people in their homes.”

As of Wednesday, 22 states representing 196 million Americans have declared some type of COVID-related emergency, according to James Hodge, director for public health law and policy, at Arizona State University.

Connection, Covid-19, Coronavirus, Virus, China
With the World Health Organization classifying the global coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump announced late Wednesday a series of emergency measures, including an unprecedented 30-day suspension of all flights from Europe. Pixabay

New York state on Tuesday created a “containment zone” around the town of New Rochelle, the epicenter of the outbreak in the state. Schools, places of worship and other large public spaces within 1.6 kilometers of the town of nearly 80,000 residents will shut down for next two weeks, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced.

An emergency declaration allows federal and state authorities to put in place a host of so-called “social distancing measures,” including restricting travel, imposing curfews, dismissing schools, restricting public gatherings and implementing quarantines.

ALSO READ: Upcoming Google Smartphone “Pixel 4a” May Launch With a Starting Price $399

The emergency measures raise constitutional questions. While quarantining individuals or groups suspected of exposure to COVID-19 is constitutional, creating “cordon sanitaire” or lockdown of groups of communities within or outside “hot zones,” is not, according to Hodge. (VOA)