In this article, Hilary Clinton lays down her plans to stop racial profiling in the criminal justice system and to eliminate the distinction between crack cocaine possession and powder cocaine possession. I agree with Clinton's stance to end racism in America and think that it is unfair for blacks to be targeted as suspects for criminal activity. However, in her support for putting body cameras on every police officer, I do not agree with her for many reasons. One, is that to but body on every police officer is extremely expensive, so where would she find the money to sponsor all of those. Second, body cameras can easily be broken intentionally or accidentally, which would be futile if a controversial case were to happen that day. Third, the position of the camera may not capture the most important evidence that may show whether or not the police or the civilian was at fault. Despite this issue, I think that Hilary Clinton is right in all her plans to stop racism in America.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-call-for-elimination-of-racial-profiling-and-end-of-crack-cocaine-distinction/
I think the war on drugs highlights a disparity between whites and blacks in American society. To take this further, the increasing impact of heroin among white communities has led to a "gentler" war on drugs (1). Heroin use has surged within suburban, predominantly white, neighborhoods, which has caused influential families to advocate for more lenient drug policies. When America's drug war was defined in the 90's by the crack epidemic in urban, predominantly black, areas, the public called for zero tolerance and harsh prison sentences. Now that white families are being affected, families are trying to change the public's view of drug offenders from "criminals" to "victims." I think this demonstrates the need to have leaders that create consistent, unbiased policies.
ReplyDelete1-http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html?_r=0
I think I agree with Clinton that there should be no difference between crack and cocaine but I don't understand how she got to the conclusion of racial profiling. The differences in sentencing has not been shown to be directed towards the blacks; instead, the 80% claim is only an effect of the system. The article doesn't mention that the law is biased when convicting people who are in possession of the same drug. Her reason for the change in the system is not a valid one, instead she should be attempting to prove that crack and cocaine have the same effects and therefore offenders should be given equal sentencing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the article and Stephen's comment, I think that racial profiling definitely is a problem to be addressed when it comes to the crack/powered cocaine distinction. Because of the cost difference between these two substances, blacks consist of a significantly higher percentage of crack usage at 80% and this high majority of black crack users vs powdered cocaine users makes it so that the police do go out of their way to bust blacks more than non-blacks.
ReplyDelete