Mass Incarceration
Biden and Trump offer more of the same; Kennedy offers a solution
By Niko House, Columnist, The Kennedy Beacon
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spoken openly and at length about his past addiction and his journey to recovery. During an interview with podcaster and acclaimed battle rapper Math Hoffa, Kennedy recounted the riveting and tragic events that catalyzed a 14-year-long drug addiction.
During the podcast, Kennedy described how, since birth, he had always felt like there was a hole in his life, suggesting that the persistent emptiness made him more susceptible to addiction. He added that, though he was eventually able to get the help he needed to recover and live a life of sobriety, his addiction was likely worsened by the fact that his family name granted him a certain level of insulation from the consequences of his actions. This insulating veil was pierced, however, when he was arrested after doing drugs on an airplane, ironically on a flight to an addiction treatment center in South Dakota. The arrest — and accountability — proved life-changing. He was finally ready to take the serious personal steps needed to conquer his addiction.
It’s truly inspiring to hear addiction recovery stories, especially from someone who has the unique life experiences of Kennedy. However, most intriguing is Kennedy’s willingness to admit that his name and status granted him protections that are simply not available to the average offender under the same circumstances. Following his arrest for heroin possession in 1984, The New York Times reported that Kennedy was released on a personal recognizance bond; and for the felony offense of possessing heroin aboard an airline flight, he was put on a six-month post-release drug treatment program. Kennedy’s journey tells a story of what can happen when someone is given a helping hand and a second chance, rather than being thrown in jail where they likely won’t get the help they desperately need.
Most people do not have access to the benefits conferred by the recognition and status of a famous family name. Instead of being shielded by status, the majority of individuals who are crying out for help from the prison of addiction are victimized by a corrupt, financially incentivized justice system that serves as a pipeline for the prison industrial complex.
Kennedy’s story shows us what can be achieved if we, as a society, take steps to rehabilitate those afflicted by addiction. It also provides us an opportunity to evaluate his platform, and the platforms of other presidential candidates, regarding mass incarceration and criminal justice reform. Below, we’ll take a look at Kennedy’s platform, and see how it stacks up against other popular presidential contenders. We’ll also assess whether or not the candidates’ platforms actually achieve the goal of rehabilitating and reducing the rate of recidivism or merely contribute to America’s ongoing fetish with mass incarceration. It’s important to keep in mind that I have not endorsed any candidate so this analysis will be objective with due credit and critique for all of the candidates mentioned.
Kennedy minces no words when it comes to addressing the historic failure of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, better known as “the 94 Crime Bill.” He states on his campaign website that he “strives to undo the legacy of the 94 Crime Bill.” Although most know that the 94 Crime Bill is likely the greatest contributor to mass incarceration of any bill in recent memory, some might consider Kennedy’s statement a direct shot at presumptive Democratic nominee and self-proclaimed author of the 94 Crime Bill, Joe Biden. In one of his most impressive statements regarding this bill, Kennedy makes it clear that the resulting law has disproportionately hurt the black community for 30 years, while financially rewarding states for contributing to mass incarceration.
Part of Kennedy’s plan to reconcile the historically negative impact of this law, which ultimately led to the targeting of Black people, is to seek early release for non-violent offenders. In my opinion, this is a common sense policy that the majority of Americans agree with.
In addition to early release programs and dismantling the 94 Crime Bill, Kennedy says he wants to “reorient police to service rather than ‘occupy’ black communities so that officers prioritize keeping neighborhoods safe, rather than harassing the residents.” As president, Kennedy would provide federal resources to facilitate work with local police officers on de-escalation training and cooperation with local community organizations.
Overall, there’s much to like about Kennedy’s criminal justice reform platform. However, I’d like to hear more specifics about how he will dismantle the legacy of the 94 Crime Bill. For example, does he plan on banning private prisons altogether to remove the financial incentive to throw many offenders, no matter how redeemable, in jail to fill the coffers of private prison investors? I’d also like to see him address mandatory minimums, which is the beating heart of that law. I appreciate the desire for true police reform, but I, like many others, believe that true police reform must include real police accountability. One sensible idea that is popular among the public is getting rid of qualified immunity and lowering the extremely high bar to charge police if they engage in corrupt practices or kill unarmed/innocent victims.
Even with a lack of detail in the areas just described, I believe that overall Kennedy’s criminal justice platform could result in reducing mass incarceration. It would provide individuals – particularly those struggling with addiction — with a second chance at life rather than making them pay a lifelong penalty, for many of them are already occupants of the prison of addiction.
President Biden: Assessing Joe Biden’s platform on criminal justice is a revealing exercise because one can measure his presidential campaign-trail claims against his 40-year record serving in the legislative branch.
As previously stated, Biden’s 94 Crime Bill is one of — if not the greatest — contributor to mass incarceration in United States history. And that was part 2 to the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that he co-sponsored, which softened the ground for Clinton’s law. Whereas Kennedy seeks to dismantle the 1994 Crime Bill, during his 2020 presidential campaign Biden was still defending it. Biden even stated that the bill didn’t contribute to mass incarceration, a direct contradiction to many 94 Crime Bill critics.
During his presidency, Biden has not made any progress in undoing the disastrous damage wrought by his 94 Crime Bill legislation. And it doesn’t look like he intends to address the harm done in any meaningful way. In fact, during his term, Biden has set the stage to increase the adverse impacts rather than alleviate them, despite some of the criticisms by many conservative opponents who allege Biden is too “soft” on crime. In 2023, Biden requested an investment of $35 billion to “support law enforcement” without implementing a legitimate mechanism of accountability that addresses the problems policing institutions have historically displayed even with overinflated budgets that often get spent on new toys rather than better training.
Biden has not given voters any indication that he intends to reform the criminal justice system or pass policies that substantively address mass incarceration. Not only have the last 40 years shown us that Biden is completely beholden to private prison lobbyists but even the last four years remind us that Biden will always contribute to circumstances that create mass incarceration. Obviously, it’s a stark contrast to how Kennedy intends to tackle criminal justice reform.
Former President Donald Trump: Trump’s criminal justice policies have been all over the map, to say the least. On the one hand, as president, Trump signed the First Step Act (FSA) in 2018. The goal of the FSA was to assess the recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of all federal prisoners and to place prisoners in recidivism-reducing programs in addition to producing activities to address their needs and reduce risk. The FSA also included opportunities for non-violent offenders to earn credits towards pre-release custody in addition to creating programs that would set them up for success once they were officially released from prison. This is an objectively good policy and Trump deserves more credit than he got for spearheading it.
On the other hand, although credit is due for Trump’s FSA, it’s important to recognize that notwithstanding this, Trump has been a run-of-the-mill “tough on crime” Republican. In fact, the former president wants to strengthen qualified immunity for police officers and wants to increase criminal penalties across the board, according to his campaign site. Another troubling part of his platform is his desire to deploy the National Guard to what he deems as “high crime communities,” despite well-established data that shows an increase or decrease in law enforcement is not the key to assessing a community’s propensity to be ridden with crime; but rather the economic circumstances of those living within that community.
In other words, Trump’s policies have the potential to undo the little bit of good his First Step Act initiated. If his campaign site and his speeches are indications of how Trump plans to govern, if re-elected, not only could we see the mass incarceration problem worsen, but we could see less overall accountability within the justice system, undermining any deserved praise for the First Step Act. Truthfully, the former president seems more concerned with punishment than with addressing the root causes that lead to a community becoming plagued with crime.
Of the candidates poised to make the debate stage, independent candidate Kennedy has a clear advantage if the moderators broach the issue of mass incarceration. In my opinion, Kennedy should lean into this issue more in the coming months and force Joe Biden and Donald Trump to face their dismal records on criminal justice reform and mass incarceration.
 | A guest post by
|
I agree that non-violent drug offenders should be given more opportunities for rehabilitation. However, the notion that more police “occupying” a neighborhood is “bad” is a liberal fallacy. The only people who don’t want more police presence are criminals. My opinion. Sorry in advance if this is somehow offensive.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, like in many progressive enclaves, crime is totally out of control. In California, thieves can steal up to $999.00 at retail outlets, no problem, and it's now against the law for so-called security guards or employees or anyone else to stop them. We have seen a massive shutdown of small businesses, restaurants, and retail chains in San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley because of this. Criminals know there are no repercussions for this. People are getting car jacked in broad daylight, even in nice neighborhoods. There have been 12,000 car thefts alone in Oakland this year, and I have friends who have had their car windows smashed and broken into twice in the same month. "Smash and grabs" are targeting tourists in San Francisco ruining people's vacations. Catalytic converter theft is out of control. Even people's food stamps and public benefits are being swiped by criminal cartels. Riding BART at night is no longer safe and you are guaranteed to be riding a car with multiple people totally strung out on drugs. Flash mobs rob retail stores and the videos go viral. Flash mob gangs of young people attack people at malls or start huge meeles. And finally let's not forget about "sideshows" on major highways and even the Bay Bridge. Rarely does anything happen to any of these people due to "progressive" District's Attorneys and their catch and release policies. Time and time again people in urban areas are pilled and they always want more police, not less. And let's be clear: while the author vaguely attacks "tough on crime" policies, at least in Bay Area - and Los Angeles and New York and Chicago, etc etc - this rampant uptick in crime has happened in the "post-George Floyd" environment where guilty white progressives decided it would be a great idea to define the police, but even worse and rarely discussed: delegitimize the police and disrespect the police. So is it any wonder that police are no longer doing their jobs. No one wants to end up like Derek Chauvin, where if a career criminal happens to die on you while resisting arrest and having twice the lethal levels of fentanyl in their system, you will be nationally disgraced, attacked and thrown in jail, as the most recent expose of the Floyd autopsy reports clearly shows. Today criminals of all kinds know that they are in control and so-called "progressives" in major cities - well steeped in postmodern ideology, identity politics, and "anti-racism - can't see outside their failed ideologies, which by the way have nothing to do with progressive ideology when RFK Sr. was around, to do anything about it. There is a profound disowned shadow occuring here, well discussed in Shelby Steele's groundbreaking book "White Guilt," whereby nobody wants to literally see and admit uncomfortable truths about why this is happening and who is doing it. Let's be clear: modern day leftism and progressivism, again steeped in postmodern ideology, identity politics and "social justice" has absolutely NOTHING in common with the progressive politics of Martin Luther King, Fred Hampton, Malcom X, or Bobby Kennedy Sr. So-called "social justice" is in a symbiotic relationship with our predatory capitalist elites, who talk the woke talk and are more than happy to fund and support organizations like Black Lives Matter Global because it BENEFITS them. All you have to do is see how differently the corporate Democrats and corporate media treated Occupy Wall Street, which accurately identified the root causes of our "systemic" probablems versus today's social justice warriors who tilt at any number of abstractions - "white supremacy," "systemic racism" - but never, ever challenge the institutions, corporations, hijacked politicians and regulatory agencies, and military industrial complex that are the cause of our societal disintegration and decay. Identity politics pits various self-identified-as-oppressed special interest groups against abstract oppressors that can never be vanquished because they are abstractions. That's the point. The left of the 60s was directed in a vertical orientation against power elites. Bobby Seale and Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party said numerous times that they were foucsed on class and economics: they wanted affordable housing, food access, especially for children, and self autonomy. Today's left is focused on a horizontal plane, promoting division rather than class and racial solidarity: black vs white (abstraction = "systemic racism," which wasn't even a thing until post-Occupy, post-Bernie Sanders 2016 grassroots, economic justice campaign scared the shit out of elites. That is when the media, Democrats, and activist class started pushing the "racism" narrative constantly); or women vs men (it's the abstract "patriarchy" that CIA asset Gloria Steinem promoted, once again taking heat off of elites and the power structure); and lets not ignore the trans and queer wars where pronouns and 27+ genders (and growing) are far more important than affordable rent, accessible home ownership, sustainable wages, and national healthcare; you know, the things the left used to stand for. The roots of the crime explosion are deeply emeshed in 40+ years of failed neoliberal "free market" economic policy, where we saw massive deregulation, globalization and the destruction of the blue collar economy, the slashing of taxes for the rich, corporations and capital gains, and the financialization of housing. People turn to crime when they cannot find legitimate ways to create a sustainable existence. Likewise the other head of the Hydra during this period was the abandoning of the left's commitment to the class and racial solidarity that all the great 60s visionaries promoted. Today multiple generations minds have been warped by postmodern identity politics which have been a boon for financial elites. That is why they promote them: if Nancy Pelosi, the corporate media, and billionaire philanthropaths are supporting your causes you are probably on the wrong track. JFK's advisor, the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warned about this decades ago in his book The Disuniting of America. If we ignore the root and refuse to see or deal with the unfortunate branch results, our nation will only continue to degenerate and de-evolve into chaos and civil unrest, which may indeed be the point. I trust that RFK Jr wants to do the right thing but I am not sure that he sees the full breadth and depth of the problem.