Which Candidate Would Be Toughest on Crime?
Bitch might be the new black, as Tina Fey suggested on Saturday Night Live over the weekend when she did a funny bit about Hillary Clinton. But really, when it comes to the candidates courting our votes now, who do you think would be the toughest on crime?
We asked that question of our CR Nation — in one of our most popular polls in quite some time. Here’s what you said:
- Hillary Clinton: 22%
- Mike Huckabee: 10%
- John McCain: 34%
- Barack Obama: 20%
- Ron Paul: 14%
Now we’d like to know why you feel the way you do. Tell us.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I totally disagree that John “100 Years War” McCain would be the toughest of this bunch on crime. His focus, if he had one in the Oval Office, would almost certainly be on military affairs. He confesses to being uneducated on economic matters, and aside from following Republican’t dogma on throwing anybody and everybody possible into the hell of capital punishment, I seriously doubt he would do anything at all to stem the endemic causes of crime, especially in urban environments. He’s old enough and out of touch enough that he still thinks marijuana usage is a prime crime in this country.
Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be far better able, both intellectually and because of their experience, to address issues of criminality in the United States.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I agree with Jeff on McCain. (dont see why people like him actually, he is always so angry, it would be like voting for Cheney).
The BEST answer for this would have been Guilianni if he were still in it. Look what he did for NYC.
I like Obama on his issues, and because of his career in community organization I think he would be more in touch than Clinton.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I don’t think any one of them would be toughest on crime. I think that some of the candidates view crime as opportunity to establish yet another “hand up, not hand out” policy, because those have worked so well in the past . . .
The other candidates don’t seem to be concerned with crime. Even if they are thinking about it at all, I don’t imagine any of them will be making any noticeable changes.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Just wondering, do you mean toughest in terms of crime prevention, or toughest punishment after the fact?
Is anyone offering both?
February 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
That’s why I didn’t vote in the poll.
“Toughest on crime” is pretty vague.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Reagan was “tough on crime” and that’s why our prisons are bursting at the seams with (mostly poor and minority) drug dealers.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Check out this website for information about the candidates and their record and quotes on issues including crime.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
I was surprised by some, not by others.
Politicians will write a bunch of pointless laws that are unenforceable, underfunded or unfunded but still give the impression of action. We been down the reactionary path before and it solved nothing and in many cases made things worse.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I had a very uninteresting and uncomplicated way of choosing my answer–I picked the most prolific republican candidate (McCain), thinking that republicans are typically pro military and pro law enforcement.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“why our prisons are bursting at the seams with (mostly poor and minority) drug dealers. ”
Drug dealers don’t deserve prison? Drugs and dealing are NOT victimless crimes. They go hand in hand with murder, prostitution, robbery, assault, etc.
Sorry, but last I checked *most* Democrats are NOT in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. They usually want to “save people from themselves.” What we need is accountability – preferably BEFORE one commits a serious crime, or becomes addicted, however if that isn’t happening, I’m all for serious accountability AFTER the fact. I’m tired of holding criminals hands. Who holds the victims hands?
February 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“What we need is accountability – preferably BEFORE one commits a serious crime, or becomes addicted, however if that isn’t happening, I’m all for serious accountability AFTER the fact. I’m tired of holding criminals hands. Who holds the victims hands? ”
Soobs — YES! I completely agree.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Accountability BEFORE someone commits a crime is what most Democrats are about. And the sad fact is that lisafer is right. The “war on drugs” totally goes after poor minorities and clogs up our prison system.
With of course a few exceptions, most drugs should be legalized, and taxed just like alcohol. Making it less profitable for drug dealers, will obviously make them lost the bang for the buck and dangerous situations everyone is in. When you are in the position of trying to provdide food for yourself, your family etc and you have no resources, which looks attractive? Minimum wage, or the cash cow that drug dealing brings in?
Education is key, but Bush dropped the ball with that one as well. His No Child Left Behind program sounded wonderful right? Except it doesnt work, and teachers are leaving the profession in droves.
That said, 70% of the people in America that are arrested are white, while white people only account for 30 to 40% of the prison population.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Maybe they should have quotas for arrests.
“Oh, sorry… We have to let this drug dealer go. We’ve already arrested our limit of minorities for the month.”
February 25th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Ok Terri, read that again SLOWLY. White people account for 70% of arrests, yet account for only 30 to 40% of the prison population.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I agree with Melissa and Soobs on this one. As well as the others with similar thought process. McCain is too wishy washy. He always has been.
The key here is preventative medicine. I am still on the fence as to who I will vote for (Clinton, or Obama). I think their views on our education system are very important. Our schooling is ridiculousy easy going. Nothing is expected of our children anymore.
I lean more towards Clinton in the assumption that she will do more for crime. She is a steadfast person when it comes to her beleifs. That is important.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I have decided who I’m going to vote for, but I don’t think that any one of these candidates really has a chance of fixing everything they say they want to fix. I mean, of course not, it would take a miracle, but I don’t think they are even going to make noticible headway. Things have been going in a bad direction for a long time and a presidential term is 4 years, 8 if the candidate is lucky. 8 years versus generations of graft, corruption, overspending and bad management is an awfully daunting proposition. Or maybe it’s just daunting to me . . . Maybe there is a chance now of both parties actually working together instead of arguing every little point and then arguing about the arguments. I wish they would sit down, work something out, if people disagree, iron it out and move on. I mean, seriously, keep them doggies movin’, RAWHIDE!!!! We have so many groups in congress they should each be assigned to solve (or come up with a working plan to solve) at least 2 of the biggest problems in the country today instead of all milling around discussing some trivial topic on cspan. Yeah, I know. I have no real idea of the vastness of “politics” and the plethora of things that must be discussed, but I have to work with what I’ve got. Candidates are harping about this problem and that . . . well, when they become the most powerful person in the free world, maybe they should delegate some of these tasks and have them actually get accomplished instead of 4 years later saying “well, we’ve made great strides in ” even though no one in the country outside of that candidate’s circle in Washington DC can tell anything has been done.
Of course, as “they” say: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Of course nothing will be fixed if we don’t keep trying.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
What is tough on crime? To convict every innocent inner-city guy accused? Give me an expl!
100 people are now off death-row, cause they were proven innocent. DNA.
So what is tough on crime? To convict the innocent?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
TxMichelle, I must disagree with “Our schooling is ridiculousy easy going. Nothing is expected of our children anymore.” From my perspective, I believe we are expecting too much in certain aspects of our curriculum…at least with the testing schedules being followed in my state. Much time has to be spent teaching children how to just understand the WORDING of the questions on these tests, let alone the knowledge and skills necessary to perform well. I could go on and on, but I guess that isn’t really the main topic on this thread. And don’t even get me started on the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind!!!
I, too, wondered about the meaning of “tough on crime”, but am off to read Rose’s link.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Education is why I am behind Obama. I believe that education is the biggest crime fighter there is.
Sure he feels the same way I do in a lot of issues that others disagree with lol. But thats besides the point.
But the basic things of what I am looking for is right now saving our economy, which is in terrible trouble, we ARE in a recession, and a DEPRESSION scares the crap out of me. Good lord, thats when meatloaf with ketchup was invented
. And we have to find ourselves out of this war, and let Iraq govern itself.
Yes, we owe them now that we have destroyed their economy (wasn’t MY vote), but I don’t think staying there is the answer. Terrorists are stronger today because of Iraq.
But on the issue of crime, again. It’s Obama. He is STRONG on education, and I think that education is key to cutting down on crime in the long run.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Crime and law enforcement are a state problem, not a federal problem. The federal constitution left law enforcement up to the states. If you want somebody to be tough on crime, look to your state governor, state legislators, and your county commissioners.
Your county commissioners is where the “get tough on crime” movement has to begin, not with the president of the United States.
My county has to turn criminals lose because the jail is too full. The jail has to turn arrested felons lose because nobody filed charges against them. The prosecutor didn’t file charges because there are not enough deputies to do the paperwork because the county commissioners won’t give them more money. There’s more criminals now because they all know that they stand a pretty good chance of walking because the county can’t afford to prosecute them all.
It’s like a snowball rolling down hill. Crime is a local problem, not a federal presidential problem. The president really doesn’t have much to say about getting tough on crime. About all the president can do is ask congress to earmark more of our tax dollars to be given to police, court, or jail systems.
Getting tough on crime is up to us on the local level, not the president on a national level.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Was there a “none of the above” answer? I’m not impressed by any of these candidates. Mike is correct, look to your state (like Gulliani) to help fight crime.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:46 am
In all fairness, no President can fix everything he wants to fix in four years, or even eight-and certainly not since he has to battle Congress every step of the way. Just not enough time. And there’s always the trickle down theory-what a President accomplishes in office doesn’t really begin to have an effect until after they are gone. For example, Clinton reaped the benefits of Reagan’s economic plan, etc.
Want to get rid of government overspending and all the other crap in DC? Don’t start with the Oval Office – clean out the Hill first. It’s the corruption there that bogs down every President we elect, good or bad.
I plan to vote for Obama, but as to who would be toughest on crime, I would vote for Hillary. Women can be a lot less tolerant than men.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:25 am
The purpose of “No Child Left Behind” was an attempt to guarantee all children receive the same quality education. It sounded better on paper than it worked in practice. Education is not a business and really can’t be run as such. Truth is, too many children have been left far, far behind, and the curriculum has narrowed the scope of education to a few core subjects. There is absolutely no fluff in education — none. Not that this is all that important, but for Valentine’s Day our kids threw their Valentines in a sack and we stapled it close and sent them home unopened. We don’t have time for parties or any other such nonsense. We have put away the play centers in kindergarten and replaced them with pencil and paper activities. Our kids are working harder but on far less creative and much more singularly focused curriculum. As for Obama’s education — show me the beef. I have been victimized by pie in the sky rhetoric before. A good start would be getting rid of No Child Left Behind, but do I worry what will take its place.
And I wish society would stop acting like education is a punishment and not a privilege. Despite all its current flaws, opportunity is still there for anyone willing to grab hold and succeed. We need to start honoring those that are willing to work and contribute. Our current attitude gives the impression only smucks work hard and are fools for not figuring how to have more by working less. Many kids think it is easier to drop out, commit crimes — perhaps sell drugs, live off welfare, or be burdens to their parents by expecting them to pay their bills because they feel society has yet to inspire them to work.
I can’t see legalizing drugs to make it easier to manage crime. And I agree there have been terrible examples of individuals falsely accused and convicted of crimes, but so have people been excused and allowed to walk free after coping a plea or some defense that says society was at fault not the criminal. Integrity has to be restored on both side of this issue.
Read the statistics on this site. The numbers speak for themselves.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
I know I am not going to find a perfect candidate. We need to get past the current “my side it righter than your side” attitude in Washington. We need leadership that wants to solve problems. We have become so focused on single issue and serving special interest groups we seem to have forgotten how all this affects the whole. And no matter what, we are all in the same leaky boat.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Compassrose,
Couldn’t have said it better. There is an overwhelming sense of entitlement in society. I get so tired of kids thinking they are supposed to have a cell phone, or an ipod etc. They are not requirements for survival. I also don’t pay my children for good grades. That should be expected. I see an education as a means, not as a punishment. If my children don’t do well in school I take things away.
I have said many times before, we also live in a society that lacks basic courtesies. There is no regard for others.
I know that no candidate is going to fix all of the problems, but we have to start somewhere. I am of the mind that anyone NOT associated with the current administration has got my vote.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Compass, I agree wholeheartedly. And TXMichelle, I couldn’t agree more with the way you respond to your children and their education. As I tell my kids (the older ones) – this is their only job. A lack of trying – not an option in my house. Do I beat them? Hell no, but you won’t find them on the computer or watching television, or hanging out with friends, if they can’t even turn in their homework. Homework that should never be below a B, IMO, as there are too many ways to get help, at that point.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just a hardass.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Soobs — you are blessed among mothers! Don’t worry about being a hardass, because one day your kids will know how to hold a job and be successful. That is the ultimate goal — for them to grow up and be confident, informed, and productive adults — not a bunch of Peter Pans and Pampered Princesses.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I agree with Mike…most crimes are at the state level and the President can’t do anything about that. He can only have an effect on crimes at the Federal level.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I think everyone agrees Sophie, which is why the conversation turned to education, which is the SURE FIRE way to curb crime.
As for my suggesting legalizing drugs and taxing them though, its because the war on drugs certainly hasnt helped, and when is the last time we heard of the horrible crime rate in Amsterdam and other countries where it is actually legal and taxed. Not ALL drugs of course. And I also think that building more rehab centers would be more beneficial than building more prisons.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I agree Melissa. And maybe drugs wouldn’t be so attractive if not forbidden.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
So hard to decide who would be good in office because ultimately, I think it all candidates are “all talk and no action”, just to get there.
What has changed with Bush except a lot of our young people dying abroad for a war that doesn’t make sense. (I didn’t vote for him either time!)