Kamala Harris’s controversial record on criminal justice, explained (2020)
Kamala Harris’s controversial record on criminal justice, explained (2020)
Harris has characterized herself as a reformer. But some critics disagree.
Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table
Some highlights from the article
Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.
A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.
But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.
Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”
You're viewing part of a thread.
Oh, I thought you were shitting on the presumptive nominee in a fashion that’s suddenly started coming out of the woodwork in a small but notable grouping of posts and comments, which I’m sure will grow to a torrent by a few days from now and not let up until the election, now that it’s no longer relevant to shit on Biden relentlessly.
Were you supporting a progressive candidate or alternate strategy for the Democrats and I overlooked it? That actually (very seriously) does sound like a good thing, yes; IDK whose messages I was reading instead that gave me the idea you were doing that other thing.
I've been shitting on her the same way since Biden picked her for VP. I was hoping for Stacy Abrams then. I don't have a specific candidate I like right now because I think Bernie and Elizabeth Warren both have the same age issue, a younger candidate probably has a better chance. I wouldn't hate Hakeem Jefferies as the nominee, I think Mark Kelly has a good chance of beating Trump. I like Cory Booker and think Tammy Duckworth would be an interesting candidate.
I don't have a specific candidate I like right now
Ah, okay, so just trying to help the Democrats lose, then, by instilling a general malaise against the current candidate with (only after some prompting) only the vaguest of unrealistic hand waving towards something that might be a solution but in practice will not be.
Well, good luck with it I guess. Have fun.
Trying to help the Democrats not immediately latch on to a bad candidate. We have until the convention to find someone better.
And yet, when I ask you which candidate they should be latching onto instead of her, you can’t even pretend to be interested in the answer to the question.
I gave 4 potential candidates I would support.
You gave two that were too old, one you wouldn’t hate, one who might beat Trump, one you liked, and one you thought was “interesting.”
Idk man. I love progressive stuff; more than Harris (or for that matter better than Biden) sounds great. I’m gonna like something that sounds like promoting that outcome. I hate the idea of Trump winning the election. I’m gonna dislike something that seems to promote that outcome, which includes shitting on the extremely-presumptive nominee without some kind of alternate plan to replace her with that is more solid than a long unenthusiastic list of candidates at varying levels of wild unrealisticness who are “interesting”.
(I also predicted this like just recently like days ago - that the instant Biden was replaced with Harris, we were gonna get a big drumbeat of “oh actually Harris isn’t good enough, we need to dump her, not to replace her with anyone in particular, just, you know, the whole PROSECUTOR thing, you know…”)
So what you're saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don't think you support baby rape.
I’m saying that:
- I agree she’s not the perfect candidate I would pick, although at the end of the day the whole child rape and ending democracy thing makes it kind of a moot point as far as supporting her in the general election if she is the nominee
- If someone wants to capitalize on the VERY short possibly nonexistent window of replacing her as the nominee, they had better have their plan picked out and be advocating for it hard without delay. If instead of that someone is just shitting on her for various non-disqualifying reasons, then I am probably going to mock or ignore them, since that behavior is not well aligned with producing any good outcome for progressive goals.
Seems fair?
Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can't really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I'd like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris's candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don't see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let's see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.
Wasn’t aware I was “falling in line.” That’s a very weird and specific characterization.