Booker makes the case for why discussion of Biden's '94 crime bill is relevant today.

[mobeau69]

Because thousands of people are sitting in jail today as a result of the mass incarceration that the bill spawned. Cory wants Joe to recognize this mistake and advocate for direct action to remedy the pain and suffering it has caused. A remedy should be part of any criminal justice reform package.

Without the debates time constraints in his post-debate interview with Anderson Cooper he was able to go into it more completely.

[lapfog_1]

1. you know... if the primaries cause so much anger in average voters

by attacking whoever the eventual nominee is... and then those voting blocks don't turn out to vote for out nominee...

[mobeau69]

2. Not necessarily. See the 2016 Republican primary.

Primary fights are nothing new.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Booker is not relevant.

He seems to think that Biden all on his own could have created a much better piece of legislation.

[mobeau69]

4. It's not about Booker being relevant. It's about the discussion being relevant.

Regardless, Biden took all the "credit" for it for years.

[UniteFightBack]

5. If he really wants to discuss it he would talk just about how to fix it and not keep beating the

dead crime bill horse. It's much more advantageous to take up the crop yet again and go for a few more wacks.

Ain't gonna work though.

[mobeau69]

6. The fix is easy but first we need political leaders to acknowledge the problem. That's why Cory

keeps "beating" on it. Joe admitted last last night that his IW vote was a mistake. That's all he needs to do on this issue.

There are people serving life sentences right now for drug offenses due to three strikes you're out.

[treestar]

15. Maybe he does not think it was a mistake

just because someone criticizes something, does not mean they are automatically correct.

It passed by so large a margin that the voters of the US must have wanted it.

Different times. And no one could know the outcomes and Booker's declarations on the outcomes are not proven to have been solely on the 1994 bill.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "Biden took all the 'credit' for it for years"

Yes, I think that's the sticking point on it. It's not the typical "I voted for an imperfect bill because when you vote for a bill, you're always taking its good with its bad, all bills are compromises"-- he *championed* that bill, stem to stern.

I think it would be good for him to say something like "I think that bill did a lot of good, but yes, in hindsight, there were some negative consequences as well... but that's going to be true of almost anything you can look back on 25 years later, things crafted at a different time under different conditions. Looking back 25 years later, sure it could have been better, and yes, there are still issues to address, but it also did a lot of good, and I think it was right for its time, or as close to right as we could have gotten it with what we understood then."

[madville]

7. Violent crime peaked in 1991-1993 and has been in steady decline since

People forget or weren't around for how bad things were getting in the early 1990s, violent crime has been in steady decline since 1994. Is that a coincidence?

[mobeau69]

8. The people he's talking about are not the violent criminals.

He's talking about non-violent crimes like drug offenses that people are serving life sentences due to three strikes you're out!

[madville]

9. The public was demanding action back at that time

People act like there were no positive results from the 94 crime bill.

[LincolnRossiter]

11. Don't try bringing context into this...

The fact that their trying to paint Biden (Joe Biden) with a racial brush, of all things, is unconscionable to me. And the whole "I don't think you're a racist but let me go ahead and imply that you don't care about people of color" is beyond disingenuous.

[treestar]

14. Exactly.

Welcome to DU!

[treestar]

13. I give Booker zero points for any nuances

As he does not allow for any in his analysis of Biden's support.

[treestar]

12. It passed with 98 votes

I defy Booker or any of the others to prove they would have voted against it under the conditions of the times in which it was passed.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. The bill didn't spawn mass incarceration.

Mass incarceration actually slowed after the bill was signed into law - not the other way around. It just seems really disappointing to me that it's so easy to misstate facts.

Biden's Crime Bill passed in 1994 - there was already well over 1 million people in the prison system:



From 1990 to 1994, before Biden's law, the prison system grew by over 300,000. In the four years after, it grew by less than 200,000 - clearly showing that mass incarceration slowed after the crime bill - not exploded. It's a disingenuous attack that defies reality.