I often find amusing the various spins those favoring the interests of criminals will put on the same event. Hence, you can take your pick between these assessments of the Democratic National Convention: (A) From Sentencing Law and Policy, "Is it lack of conviction, lack of courage, or just lack of cleverness that leads Dems to be so weak on criminal justice reform advocacy?" or (B), From the Huffington Post, "The Criminal Justice System Was a Huge Focus at the DNC. But It Can't Stop There."
Since I didn't watch either Convention except for snippets, I am in no position to say who's right. I have my own assessment, however, based on years of following politics.
To the extent I agree with Doug about his "missed opportunity" take on the DNC, I think the answer is simpler, and kinder to the Democrats. What they lack is neither conviction, courage nor cleverness.
What they lack is stupidity.
The Democrats know that a violent crime wave of shocking proportions has been underway for more than a year and a-half in their political base, to wit, the most populous cities. (I have given the data supporting this view so often now that I'm not going to re-link them here). They also know that crime is a deadly issue (as it were) for them. Nixon made good use of it, easily winning two elections despite widespread doubts about his character. (Any resemblance to the current campaign is purely coincidental, sort of). And Gov. Michael Dukakis is probably best remembered for throwing away a substantial lead in 1988 when it came out that Massachusetts had given weekend parole to a vicious criminal. Dukakis's preference for the interests of miscreants over future crime victims became too obvious for him to overcome.
Hillary knows all about this, and does not want to repeat the error. At the same time, she has to keep her base in the BLM movement, and other vibrantly pro-criminal organizations, enthusiastic. Hence the intentionally muddled and opaque message at the DNC, that we have to "respect our police while tackling the unfairness in the system," or some such vacant bromide.
I do not agree with Doug that this amounts to a wasted opportunity. I think, instead, that it's part of the creation of an opportunity -- the opportunity to win in November, after which Hillary can (and, if successful, will) make quite clear whose side she's on -- not that anyone who watched the primaries could have a doubt.
"criminal justice reform advocacy"
What do they advocate?
Do they mean actually serving a span of time remotely close to the sentence?
A little "truth in sentencing"?
I dealt with someone who only served 6 months of
state time before parole, on a 7-yr-sentence.
EXAMPLE 1 .nj.gov/parole/docs/ParoleCalc.pdf
This example illustrates the method of calculating parole eligibility
when a specific term of years is imposed which does not contain a
mandatory minimum term.
Date of Sentence: 6/10/02 || Term: 10 years {maximum discharge date 6/16/12}
Jail Credit: 61 days (4/11/02 to 6/10/02)
1. Add 1/3 of 10 year term (3 years, 4 months) to the date of sentence (6/10/02) thereby yielding a date of 10/10/05.
2. Subtract sixty-one (61) days of jail credit from 10/10/05. This gives a
flat eligibility date of 8/10/05.
3. Subtract commutation credit. To determine appropriate commutation credit calculate the time period between the date of sentence (6/10/02) and the flat eligibility date of 8/10/05. This time period is 3 years, 2 months.
Locate this time period on the commutation chart (Appendix A).
In this example, the commutation credit is 268 days. Subtract the 268 days
of commutation credit from the flat eligibility date of 8/10/05. This gives a
book eligibility date of 11/15/04.
4. Subtract work/minimum credit. In this example, assume that the inmate
has earned a total of 35 days of credit as of 2/1/03. Subtract 35 days from
the book eligibility date of 11/15/04. This gives an actual eligibility date of
10/11/04 as of 2/1/03.
~ 2 years, 4 months & 1 day for a 10 year sentence?