Does America need 100,000 new police officers on the street?

Sen. Hillary Clinton has proposed putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America, part of a $4 billion anti-crime package reminiscent of her husband's similar efforts during the 1990s. Clinton said that her proposals would cut the murder rate in big cities by half, and claimed that crime was reduced to historic lows during her husband's presidency with federal funding then for police, since cut, and an assault weapons ban, among other policies. But crime is already low relative to the 1970s and 1980s. Does America need 100,000 new officers on the streets?

Ben likes: Two positions for Hillary

Abe Greenwald/Commentary's Contentions

At a campaign stop in Philadelphia today, Hillary Clinton proposed an anti-crime package that would put 100,000 more cops on the streets of the U.S.

It’s a good thing, too: Another part of her package calls for letting imprisoned crack users back out on the streets to mix it up with the extra cops. According to the Los Angeles Times, this is all part of a plan to reduce recidivism and achieve fair treatment for blacks and whites under the law. Crack users “are disproportionately black,” and “the law punishes them more harshly than powder cocaine users, who are predominantly white.”

What’s wrong with stiffer penalties all around? Wouldn’t that take care of the imbalance and encourage less recidivism, at least in theory? The problem is, though, it wouldn’t help Hillary achieve her real goal—which is, as always, taking every position so that everyone approves. She wants more cops walking the beat to show she’s tough on crime, but she wants to reduce crack-related sentences to show she’s sympathetic to certain segments of the criminal population. This isn’t about anti-recidivism. It’s about a return to the big house. Another Clinton wants to be president and is employing Clintonian triangulation to get there.

Joel likes: Cutting the murder rate in half

Dana Goldstein/TAPPED

Hillary Clinton's anti-crime plan, rolled out today in Philadelphia, smacks of the 1990s. As Ben Smith notes, "In a way, domestic terrorism -- for political purposes -- has replaced crime as a focus of policy statements and posturing." Indeed, concern about urban violence and policing just isn't on the national radar these days, although the criminal justice reform movement and anti-prison work are actually gaining in prominence on the progressive left. Clinton tips her hat to those communities by promising to invest $1 billion in programs to decrease the number of offenders in prisons and juvenile detention facilities, as well as prevent recidivism.

Once again, even this late in the game, here's a domestic issue on which Clinton has managed to out-flank Barack Obama. But no mainstream candidate has really taken any big risk on criminal justice issues. That would entail, I think, speaking honestly about the failed drug war.

Wasting time on this useless drug war is a joke.But graft and corruption feed the Prison Industrial Complex, and keeps local,state and federal authorities rolling in illicit cash.

Next time you are in a 7 Eleven or other store, think about the poor cashier who is a sitting duck for every meth and crack headed scumbag.And to top it off, the poor working stiff is lucky to make minimum wage.

I say expedite the death penalty when it is a clear cut case of murder by robbery,raping a child,etc. When there is a question of DNA testing being able to clear a convicted murderer, by all means spend the money and test them. But when it is obvious through evidence that a person is quilty, then execute them and leave the pot heads and self destructive druggies alone.

Manage your crime fighting resources by concentrating them on violent offenders.

redblueamerica.com