Democrats and republicans seem to be having different conversations when it comes to the topic of criminal justice. As an increase in mass shootings continue, along with debates about crime and violence committed by police officers, incarceration, those conversations could come together.
Though entering this topic from different angles, there is some common ground among some democratic and republican candidates. Republican, Ran Paul, a libertarian and Bernie Sanders who is seeking democratic nomination, support demilitarizing police departments.
Sanders states “ a growing number of communities do not trust the police. Law enforcement officers have become disconnected from the communities they are sworn to protect. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of the police meant to protect and serve our communities, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated.”
Surrounded by criminal justice majors at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the majority of individuals within this classroom agreed with the statement. When asked to give suggestions on how to improve the relationship between communities and police officers, many suggestions were given. Andrew Sahadeo, a graduate from John Jay said, “we need the police force to reflect our communities in which they are supposed to be protecting.” Research shows that we are more comfortable around those who we identify with. Having a police force consisting of mostly whites in a predominantly black neighborhood may at a disadvantage when trying to understand to the community.
Vanessa Gant, a teaching assistant in criminal justice department said, “the idea of investing in community policing should be spoken about more frequently. Officers should be working within the communities before trouble arises, therefore creating an organic relationship which is necessary for communities to come together.” As students are nodding their heads in approval, one individual mentions that it’s not just police it’s the whole criminal justice system.
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet have almost 25 percent of the worlds total prison population. A large portion of the more than 2 million individuals incarcerated are nonviolent offenders. “It can become difficult to talk about incarceration rates when one race seems to be at a disadvantage to be incarcerated when compared to others,” Sahadeo said.
Though he didn’t mention the actual race of these individuals, a brief silence in the room confirmed everyone knew what he was talking about. African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men found guilty of the same offenses.
Democrat Hilary Clinton said, “Black lives matter. Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that. … Since this campaign started, I’ve been talking about the work we must do to address the systemic inequities that persist in education, in economic opportunity, in our justice system. But we have to do more than talk—we have to take action.” Clinton believes our justice system is out of balance. In her first major speech of this campaign, she called for an end to the “era of mass incarceration.”
Meanwhile on the opposing side, republican and Ohio Governor John Kasich has called for an end of imprisonment for people with mental illnesses and rehab for drug-addicted prisoners. Kasich signed a sentencing reform bill that will allow some felons to skip prison and others to get out early. He said the legislation might be the most important thus far in his short tenure as governor because it goes directly toward helping people improve their lives. Making it clear to offenders, Kasich says “I don’t want anyone to think we’ve lost discipline, you do bad. . . We’re locking you up. But for someone that wants to do better, we’re giving you a chance.”
One hour and forty-five passes as the group touched on the subjects that the parties agreed on and gave their take. The common ground begins to fade quickly on the subject of guns. On their website most republican candidates express their support for the Second Amendment rights, which has been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for a purpose that includes self-defense. The most recent poll showing that as of July 20th, 71 percent of republicans support gun rights and a merely 25 percent of democrats support gun rights.
Democratic candidates support more gun control but cannot agree on how much. Sanders online platform doesn’t mention guns and he has been called out for being “soft” on gun issues. He has also made a few eye-raising statements as Carlton Adams, department of African American studies at John Jay mentioned. Adams spoke about the Las Vegas debate in which Sanders was questioned about gun control.
He replied by alleging urban areas needed stricter gun laws as appose to rural areas. The senator then adds a racial undertone to the debate. Vermont, which, Sanders claims, can handle loose gun restrictions, is 1 percent black. Baltimore, which Sanders has cited as an area in need of stricter gun control is about 64 percent black. It’s alarmingly easy to read Sanders’ paraphrased answer as an implication that rural whites can be trusted with guns and urban blacks cannot be.
“How many people have actually fired a gun or own one?” A question presented to the group, in which the overwhelming majority raised their hands to indicate they have fired a gun. Those who didn’t raise their hands indicating they have never fired a gun nor own one, didn’t seem to be interested in firing one anytime soon. Anissa Sahdat, a criminal justice major said, “Almost everyone in here has shot a gun, am I the only one who’s surprised?” Followed by a few comments made by other individuals, her question was never answered. In a room full of males and females compiled of different races and age ranges, is it possible that shooting guns is expected to be a norm? Unaware of others backgrounds the debate on who should be able to own a firearm arises.
Clinton says she will expand background checks and make it harder to buy guns online and at gun shows. “I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this” Clinton says. Unlike her opponents, Clinton does have a history of supporting ways to reduce gun violence. She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable. As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.
Noted on her website, Clinton list legislation she would work to put in place which include comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.
Also tightening up gun show and Internet sales loopholes if congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.
Since their here hasn’t been a significant change in membership in congress, it is very unlikely that the next president could enact gun-control legislation if elected. Clinton mentioned on her website that efforts to expand background checks failed after the 2013 school shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, but she’s not giving up and will continue to fight for legislation.
As the discussion Is coming to an end, one student ask as he’s getting himself ready to leave, “How much of a difference can the next president make if he/she gets in office? The president doesn’t make laws right?” In the US, Presidents don’t make laws. The president is head of the executive branch. The job of the executive branch is to execute to carry out the laws. The legislative branch makes laws. In the US, the legislative branch is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The public elects members of both houses. Both houses debate and votes on bills that become laws when passed. The president can veto bills to prevent then from becoming laws. He/she can also be very vocal about existing laws, and use political influence over the legislative branch. However, he/she cannot refuse to carry out a law that has already been enacted. After the process, the man answered his own question and simply said “not much I guess right?”