Bill Clinton: I Made Criminal Justice ‘Worse’

[tmonster]

I don't think he should apologize honestly. The logic he used when he made the decision to support violent crime act came from a rationale place. In economics when the cost raises for a good it deters ppl away from buying it, so in the context of raising crime penalties to deter the raising crime rates in big cities in the 80s and early 90s made sense. The only flaw with this idea is that criminals just don't give shyt about the cost lol, so it didn't fix the problem it just created a bunch of new problems, but that doesn't mean Bill intent didn't come from a rationale place.

that's a lot of thoughts

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Bill Clinton was just as bad as any other president that didn't do shyt for the ppl, but swear, up until Obama every nikka's favorite president was Clinton. Nobody can ever say why though

Because of Bill Clinton more and more women became open to sucking d*ck...TRUTH...Today, you can't even take a woman seriously if she says she doesn't suck d*ck...

That's what Bill Clinton did for all men all over the world...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

like he was fukkin oblivious when he signed it

it was the early 90s, crack epidemic, etc.

no one probably saw shyt like this happening.

then again maybe they did?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

like he was fukkin oblivious when he signed it

then again maybe they did?

I don't think he should apologize honestly. The logic he used when he made the decision to support violent crime act came from a rationale place. In economics when the cost rises for a good it deters ppl away from buying it, so in the context of raising crime penalties to deter the rising crime rates in big cities in the 80s and early 90s made sense. The only flaw with this idea is that criminals just don't give a shyt about the cost lol. So it didn't fix the problem it just created a bunch of new problems, but that doesn't mean Bill's intent didn't come from a rationale place.

this...

it was the early 90s, crack epidemic, etc.

no one probably saw shyt like this happening.

NOT TO MENTION...major cities were ON FIRE back then. Crime now is nothing like it used to be in the 90s. NYC made today look like disneyworld

On top of that its kinda like the Dont Ask Dont Tell measure that he gets flack for now

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I don't think he should apologize honestly. The logic he used when he made the decision to support violent crime act came from a rationale place. In economics when the cost rises for a good it deters ppl away from buying it, so in the context of raising crime penalties to deter the rising crime rates in big cities in the 80s and early 90s made sense. The only flaw with this idea is that criminals just don't give a shyt about the cost lol. So it didn't fix the problem it just created a bunch of new problems, but that doesn't mean Bill's intent didn't come from a rationale place.

do I really have to point out that this makes no sense? You compared a shift in a supply-demand curve to sentences for non-violent crimes. There is no way in hell this was the rationale...and if it was, Clinton was terrible.

I get it, the harsher the sentence the more it should deter crime but that can't be the reason.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

1. We know he said this to help Hilary's campaign. If he's saying this, it shows Hilary supporters that she'll continue criminal justice reform. This effectively nullifies Bernie Sanders and the progressives

2. We seem to forget that many community leaders were pushing for additional sentencing. While not everyone was behind mandatory minimums, folks did want an increased police presence and longer sentences.

3. Bill Clinton receives favorable treatment from many dems because of the economic boom of the 90s. When you compare him to Bush Sr., Reagan and Nixon, he looks like FDR.

My rebuttable is that it's pointless to argue his motivation. Be happy that criminal justice reform is at the forefront of national politics.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

do I really have to point out that this makes no sense? You compared a shift in a supply-demand curve to sentences for non-violent crimes. There is no way in hell this was the rationale...and if it was, Clinton was terrible.

I get it, the harsher the sentence the more it should deter crime but that can't be the reason.

The effect that increased cost has on human psychology isn't a process derived from economics, it's a process derived from human nature, and all supply-demand do is underline that fact. You could literally observe this cost-vs-benefit process in non economics setting like when a person makes the choice to stay home and watch TV, or go to work. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to assume that this would apply to the soaring crime rates of 1992, so it made sense to at-least test the idea, and like I said the results came back and the idea produce more negatives then positives.

Now maybe that wasn't the logic Bill used when deciding on the policy, and maybe his intent was malicious, like, maybe he wanted to fill the prisons up for personal-gain, or maybe he knew the policy wouldn't work but he also knew it would appeal to political sentiment which would advance his career -- for me, until hard evidence is provided I have no reason to not believe that he didn't just raise the cost to discourage the soaring crime rates of 1992 which would be logical for the reasons I explained.

 

[the cac mamba]

it was the early 90s, crack epidemic, etc.

no one probably saw shyt like this happening.

then again maybe they did?

thats also the thing i mean if you wanted crack and violent crime to be stopped...of course theres the question of how it's getting here but, shyt

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

So fukk Bill and Hillary
Ice Cube their ain't no killin me