Sen. Marco Rubio is in a battle with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. Trump is ahead and seems to have the advantage going forward. But nothing is fixed in politics (did you ever hear of Brian Sandoval for the Supreme Court before yesterday?), and Rubio is an excellent speaker. He could be the "bridge candidate" who unites more Establishment types with down-the-line conservatives. Taken together, those two groups constitute a majority of Republican voters.
Rubio was asked on a Fox News citizen forum about prison reform and "mass incarceration." He did not repeat the Establishment Received Wisdom that we need to adopt some of the sentencing reduction bills presently treading water in Congress. Instead, he said the bills are largely misconceived, because the people actually serving federal time are not mere users or addicts, but dealers and violent criminals. He also said he would preserve our gains against crime. The video is here.
I think that means Rubio just came out against the SRCA. We already knew that Cruz voted against it in Committee. Donald Trump has not spoken to the issue directly that I know about, but seems to be very hard line, wanting an automatic death penalty for cop killers.
When the Party's three leading Presidential candidates are on the same side of an issue, that pretty well tells you where the center of the Party is. That, in turn, gives you a good clue about what the Party's Senate Majority Leader is going to do.
Thank you, Marco Rubio.
A recent poll by Pew found a majority of democrats, republicans, and independents, 79% of voters, support ending mandatory minimums (or giving judges the ability to determine the sentence based on the facts of the case in drug offenses). Sixty-one percent of voters also believe too many drug offenders are taking up too much space in our federal prisons.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/02/national_survey_key_findings_federal_sentencing_prisons.pdf
Cruz has criticized mandatory minimums as too harsh and expensive and Rubio has in the past cautioned care in reforming drug sentences, which is not exactly a condemnation of the idea of sentencing reform.
This along with support from Republican Senators for the SRCA suggests it may be your position, a knee jerk opposition to any kind of sentencing reform, that is out of step with the American public and the Republucan party.
1. When asked about process, those questioned will respond about process. When asked about substance -- like whether we have too many drug traffickers in prison for too long, or whether instead we need to do more to keep them off the street -- they respond about substance.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2015/11/do-americans-want-more-jail-or.html
2. "Cruz has criticized mandatory minimums as too harsh and expensive..."
One of the great things about people is that they can learn!
3. "...and Rubio has in the past cautioned care in reforming drug sentences, which is not exactly a condemnation of the idea of sentencing reform."
I'll take what he said a couple of days ago in the tape I linked, when asked a question by a person with your point of view.
4. "This along with support from Republican Senators for the SRCA suggests it may be your position, a knee jerk opposition to any kind of sentencing reform, that is out of step with the American public and the Republucan party."
(a) DO TELL about the Republican Party, about which I'm sure you know more than I.
(b) The proposition that I have "knee jerk opposition to any kind of sentencing reform" is flatly false, not that that would be new for you.
It was precisely two days ago when I wrote this: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/02/the-right-kind-of-criminal-jus.html
1. I don't think the two studies are irreconcilable. People can believe the federal prison system has too many people serving sentences that are too long for drug offenses and believe that we need to do more to keep drug traffickers off the street. Maybe they will do a poll teasing out where people draw the line on a mere drug offense to a drug trafficking offense. Such a distinction I think would be more beneficial than the generalized questions pollsters often ask.
2. I'm not sure Cruz"s position has changed although his rhetoric may have. But you can have Cruz, him as an ally is probably more harmful than helpful.
3. I don't think Rubio's answer is as broad as you imply, he said he supported mandatory minimums for "people that are violent and dangerous criminals...." This position would actually align with a recent congressional task force's recommendation to reform mandatory minimums by having them be triggered by a defendant playing a leadership role involving a large amount of drugs.
(P.S. I do not share the questioner's point of view. I think "mass incarceration" is an ill advised media campaign designed to prey on public ignorance and elevate catch lines over real consequences and if successful likely to create bad policy. If you need some sort of affirmation on my position then I will say I may not agree with your reasons on recent cases, but I think the thrust of your conclusions are correct: Weinstein's pornography case of five days served for child pornography was too low, but not because of the age of the children involved in the videos. It was too low because even under Weinstein's suspect hierarchy of porn possessor culpability this guy was pretty far up the chain chiming in just below distributors and those that actually sexually abuse children, because that guy had actually gone from viewing to seeking out and contacting children online. Callahan-his criminal history should have been taken into account as a significant factor; it wasn't and I consider that a failure of our system..The Florida repeat offender that got about a year with weapons and drug offenses that committed vehicular homicide--no excuse that guy should not have been out when he was. One of the reasons I support some sentencing reforms, not any and all, is because we have a finite amount of resources and I think in some instances we are expending too much on offenders that don't warrant it thereby depriving resources needed to effectively address offenders that present a greater threat to society)
4.
a. I am infinitely sure you know more about the Republican Party than I, but I do think there is evidence suggesting the Republican Party is not as uniformly united in opposition as the post suggested.
b. The post you linked to I don't consider sentencing reform. When I said "sentencing reform" I meant changing the way we determine punishment for those convicted of crimes. Your example is on mens rea reform (which I agree with and think is deserving of legislative attention), but it is about determining what constitutes a crime. Maybe this is too fine a distinction for you, but that is what I meant.