Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder

[madmusic]

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

It is imperative that we get smart on crime now, for much has changed since some of our basic, governing assumptions about criminal law enforcement were developed. In the middle years of the twentieth century, America went through an historic increase in crime and illegal drug use. In the 1960s and 70s, the overall crime rate increased more than five-fold. Violent crime nearly quadrupled. The murder rate doubled. And heroin, cocaine and other illegal drug use surged.

Many lawmakers in the 1980s responded by declaring, in rhetoric and in legislation, that we needed to get tough on crime. States passed truth-in-sentencing and three strikes and you’re out laws. Some state parole boards became more cautious, while other states eliminated discretionary parole altogether. The federal government adopted severe mandatory minimum sentencing laws, eliminated parole, and developed the federal sentencing guidelines.

The federal government and states spent billions of dollars in new prison construction. The result was dramatic: the number of inmates in American prisons has increased seven-fold since 1970. Today, one out of every 100 adults in America is incarcerated – the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Few would dispute that public safety requires incarceration, and that imprisonment is at least partially responsible for the dramatic drop in crime rates nationwide in recent decades. By 2007, the nation’s violent crime rate had dropped by almost 40% from its peak in 1991. But just as everyone should concede that incarceration is part of the answer, everyone should also concede that it is not the whole answer. Simply stated, imprisonment is not a complete strategy for criminal law enforcement.

Read more: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090709.html

---

Smarter than soundbites encourages respect for the law. Do you think this is moving in the right direction?

[Myrina]

1. ... it all depends on their definition of "crime" ...

... should casual pot smokers be incarcerated?
Or should tax evading CEO's be?
Who's doing more damage to society?

/rhetorical question

[RandomThoughts]

2. It also depends on enforcement of laws.

If the laws are enforced against some people and not others, it is not justice, it is targeted control. If a person that speaks out is targeted by finding some law they broke, then it has nothing to do with law enforcement. Many people in authority no longer solve crimes, they find people they think are criminals or bad, and find some crime they can charge them with.

Also using prisons as slave labor for corporations, or even profit on prisons, puts the profit motive behind putting as many people in prison as possible.

Prisons should not be profitable, (and actually they are not since tax payer money goes to pay the private sector) they should not be profitable to a few people with prison companies, knowing that money comes from tax payers.

[Metta]

3. Is he talking loud and saying nothing? Let's see what he does.

... waiting with less patience than in November.

[dmosh42]

4. I had high hopes for Holder, but since he doesn't see any crimes ...

in D.C. political circles, mainly from the Bush era, I hardly consider him a source of anything. Probably, I can rate him as #4 worst AG, behind Gonzalez, Ashcroft and Mukasy.

[madmusic]

5. Does he have enough public support? Not here, it seems.

The People do not seem that interested.

EDIT: this was a reply to Metta.