Hillary's Crime Plan: Specifics as to Increased Punishment

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In reading through Hillary Clinton's new anti-crime proposal (background here), my chief interest was who, if anyone, would be subject to increased penalties and what new crimes would she create. My own position is that our criminal sentences, both state and federal, are already draconian and don't need to be raised any higher. We can't jail ourselves out of our crime problem. Smarter approaches are needed.

Here are the existing crimes for which Hillary would ask for greater sentences and the new crimes she would create:

Online Child Exploitation, Online Sales of Prescription drugs to Minors, and Computer Fraud and Identity Theft
Hillary will direct the Attorney General to crack down on online child exploitation and harassment through three steps:

Hillary will sign a new law that makes it a federal crime for an adult to cyberstalk a minor.

Enlist the private sector to crack down on online prescription drug sales to kids. Hillary will ask credit card companies to prohibit – and police – the use of their services for illegal drug sales to minors. ... At the same time, she will strengthen penalties against fly-by-night online pharmacies that prey on children.

[More...]

Hillary will expand enforcement of and increase penalties for identity theft and other cybercrimes. She will... strengthen federal criminal penalties for identity theft when the victim is a minor...

Increase the sentences for people convicted of identity theft, computer fraud, illegal wiretapping, and unlawful access to stored information.

Authorize additional criminal restitution in identity theft cases to compensate victims and impose expanded criminal forfeitures.

Meth Crimes:

Make it a federal crime to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance – including meth – that is colored, packaged, or otherwise altered in a way designed to appeal to kids and young people.

Corporate Crime

Hillary will direct her Attorney General to report to her on this practice [granting deferred prosecutions to corporations], reduce its use, and increase the number of serious and meaningful prosecutions of corporate criminals.

Conversely, here are the penalties she would reduce:

At the federal level, Hillary will reform mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, starting by eliminating the mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine and eliminating the disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

As to penalties she leaves alone, her anti-gang portion of the plan and the provisions applicable to guns, don't call for increased penalties.

The vast majority of her plan is directed to prevention and furthering coordination of local and federal law enforcement efforts. In a nutsell,

Her agenda is built on the idea of partnership. The federal government will serve as a partner with states, counties and communities – supplying the necessary resources, innovative practices and technological support to help states and local governments confront the evolving challenges of crime and hometown security.

Hillary’s crime agenda will address the urgent challenge of violent crime rates and homicide, and work to close the prison revolving door, protect children and families from 21st Century threats like methamphetamine and online child exploitation.

< Clinton Campaign Misfiring | Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary's Crime Plan: Specifics as to Increased Punishment | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This needs to spell out the age difference (none / 0) (#1)
by ding7777 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST

and relationship between an adult cyberstalker and minor victim so as not to include a jilted 21 year old who constantly emails a former 17 year old girlfiend

Hillary will sign a new law that makes it a federal crime for an adult to cyberstalk a minor

Yep.... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM EST

if this crap passes it won't be long before we are reading about some poor 20 year old kid in jail for emailing his 17 year old girlfriend one too many times.


You can tell the difference between a 21 year old (none / 0) (#5)
by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST

chatting with his 16 year old girlfriend (although I'm repulsed by that), but there are too many cases of 32 year old men who don't friggin' grow up and are trolling for young girl to screw up their lives (and boys too, it happens to boys too).

If you have a problem with the statutory rape laws in your state, fight to get them changed. But I don't have a problem with discouraging men from preying on young girl (and boys) by threatening jail time. These guys get to screw the young girls and the family get to fix the horror afterwards.

Let's teach some sexual responsibility to everyone.


I'm not against statuatory rape laws..... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:06:17 PM EST

though I'd like some of them revised so that it is impossible for peers to be charges with statuatory rape...i.e. the high school senior/high school freshman scenario.

I fully support child molestation laws, one of the few crimes I support long, hard sentences for.

I even support laws against harassment...I just don't think we need anymore of them, we are covered.

Let's teach some parental responsibility to parents as well...the state cannot protect your kids from seeing bad stuff on the internet, or somebody from contacting them on the internet. Keep an eye on what your kids are up to...no one else can.


I agree... (none / 0) (#7)
by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:28:00 PM EST

We need more involvement on all levels.

But I am glad that Hillary is talking about these nuts-and-bolts issues. While Americans are concerned about Iraq, they are more concerned with domestic issues- economy, crime, and health care.

Now, I'll be waiting for Obama to bring out his plan since he tends to follow Hillary.


: No kids here.... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST

but I have nieces, my 9 year old niece amazes me with her internet savvy. Because of that she isn't allowed on the internet unsupervised....a very good move by her parents, imo. Good parenting is better than a new law which would surely ensnare people it did not intend to. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.
Real-deal child predators are a problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a big issue for this election, unless pandering politicians make it so by stoking fear and paranoia.

I would guess (none / 0) (#15)
by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST

My guess is that this initiative is probably a response to that situation in St. Louis where some 12 or 13 year old girl was harassed by a neighboring parent posing as a teenage boy. The parent was trying to find out if the girl in question had spread any rumors about her daughter. However, the harassment got to be so much that the girl committed suicide.

In the aftermath, it turned out that there were no grounds to prosecute the parent.

Just a guess, by this is probably the origin of that.


Sounds tragic.... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST

didn't catch that story...I'll never figure out what the hell is wrong with people, I swear. Reminds me of that killer cheerleader mom in Texas.

Still not sold that we need a new federal law on cyber-stalking though...


found the story (none / 0) (#19)
by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:45:05 PM EST

Here it is.


Thanks Duck....n/t (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM EST

Checked it out.... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST

I'm still against the law.

F*cked up, to be sure, but from the limited info I'm not sold what that creep neighbor did should be criminal.

I did take heart at this bit...

The mother, who has herself been targeted by internet reprisals after her identity was revealed

There is always street justice...I take heart in that.


: as i recall (none / 0) (#26)
by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST

I'm remembering more about it and I believe the mother also involved other kids - even in other states - to join her in bullying the victim. So the girl was getting dozens of messages.
Not in a place to google right now, but it was pretty intense.

: You may want to comapre the laws (none / 0) (#28)
by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST

that you think have you covered against the proposals. I find it interesting that you cut off the quote and left off the part that said they didn't have a law they could charge her under.
I have to wonder if they couldn't get the woman for child abuse. And the law they proposed seems weak on the punishment end. Would be nicer if it was stepped. Right now it seems nothing more than a slap on the wrist. That'll help . . .

tragic story, but . . . (none / 0) (#30)
by txpublicdefender on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST

One tragic story doesn't mean there should be a federal law criminalizing it. Legislation passed in response to one incident is usually the worst kind of dreck. This does not need to be a federal crime.


: I want Democrats to write (none / 0) (#34)
by eleanora on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:42:37 PM EST

the internet control bills though, not Republicans. The Rs have been pushing this issue like crazy, MySpace and Facebook and LJ are locking down content in response to right-wing pressure groups. Yet another really good reason to make sure we retain and strengthen the Dem Congress, because the "Scrap the Internet and Start Over" movement specifically cites the need for big business and law enforcement to be involved in the re-design, for the sake of the children, of course. What Hillary's proposing undercuts them nicely.

: Nail on the head tex....n/t (none / 0) (#35)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST

Great..... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST

The banks and credit-card companies have already been deputized into the war on gambling, making it much more difficult to play a little online poker for millions of supposed free Americans, now they are war on drug deputies too.

The financial industry has become a bunch of spies and government tyranny co-conspirators. Why not just issue every banker and credit-card processor badges, guns, and cuffs and make it official?

Disagree with draconian...just the uneven delivery (none / 0) (#4)
by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST

I don't feel the present laws are draconian, compared to other nations especially in Europe. I do have problem with heavy sentences for drug users (not sellers- they should all go under the prisons). Also, the laws for crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine (gotta keep Ivy League frat boys like Bush and Obama from going to jail for youthful indiscretions) are too harsh. Even Rockefeller says his laws need to be repealed because they are not being used against the real targets- drug king pins- but against the local dealer/user.

Someone gotta do something about crystal meth. It has devastated rural America. The kiddie porn thing and the molester stuff is something not one mother would vote against (good move to shore up the women vote). She said she would go after corporations, which is good (now does it happen is another thing).

All in all, a decent plan. The federal has to work with the state on this, no other choice.

: I think... (none / 0) (#37)
by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:09:58 PM EST

...your opinions are widely shared, but deeply misguided.
First, European sentencing (at least Western Europe) is not nearly as draconian as sentencing in the United States. We have sentencing that can only be described as draconian, particularly at the federal level (for felonies).
Second, good luck distinguishing "sellers" from users. The relevant (federal) word is "distribution," which does not require sale.
And frankly, distinguishing between distribution and possession for drugs makes no sense if you support draconian sentencing for people who possess child pornography. The basis for lengthy sentencing (and criminalization) is the "market theory." Basically, demand for child pornography creates a supply of child sexual abuse, so criminalizing child pornography and tough sentences for those who possess it deters child sexual abuse. So mandatory minimums for possession (say, five years, no supervised release?) should deter the supply of drugs quite effectively. But we despise drug "dealers" and feel empathy for drug users, even though the two are often (perhaps usually) indistinguishable.

Good stuff by HRC (none / 0) (#8)
by Universal on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:41:44 PM EST

More specifics which is a stark contrast to her opponent's rhetoric.

Something should be done about the vulnerability of children online. I like her recommendations.

And as you well know, Jeralyn, the disparity in the sentencing guidelines between power and crack cocaine has long been due for a repeal. A very just proposal, indeed.

Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

"do something about crystal meth" (none / 0) (#10)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM EST

When I was 17, speed was manufactured by licensed pharmaceutical labs, the byproducts of manufacture handled by licensed toxic waste haulers, and distribution handled by crooked MDs. Since it was cheap even on the resale market, it was generally eaten rather than injected or snorted. All around, less problems.

As I recall (none / 0) (#18)
by stillife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST

quite a few people did shoot and snort meth back in the late 60's/early 70's. When I was in high school, I knew kids who were speed freaks. They'd "bust scrips" (steal them from doctors) or like you said, find a crooked doctor to write the scrips They injected it. Cheapness wasn't a factor; it was all about the rush.

Speed was a big factor in turning Haight-Ashbury into a nasty, violent place after the Summer of Love, at least that's the way I heard it. I'm pretty sure that "speed kills" refers to shooting speed more than popping diet pills.

Nowadays - I could be wrong, b/c I'm an old fart and totally out of the drug loop - but meth is smoked rather than injected.


: and through to the 80's (none / 0) (#29)
by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST

speed was around in HS and College (82) when I was going to school. And yes, snorting and shooting were some peoples choices. Wasn't 'speed kills' associated with needles in the advertising? What I know about meth is it's smoked, but I think there may be those that still shoot or snort. Any drug exposure I have these days is if I catch Intervention on A&E.
Heh, I lived on Haight/Asbury for a couple yrs in the 80's. It was changing into a more gentrified 'hood. Or at least they were trying. They were building a Gap right there on the corner across the street from me.

: Canned Heat's "Amphetamine Annie" (none / 0) (#32)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:34:25 PM EST

"She thought her mind was flyin' on those little pills,
Didn't know she was dying cause SPEED KILLS."

Given up on criminalizing videogames? (none / 0) (#11)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST

: Not so fast (none / 0) (#25)
by manys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:21:37 PM EST

These are just the most campaignable "won't somebody think of the children?!" ideas, the less fancy ones like videogames and candy will surely out once she's in office (Tipper is just a phone call away). Notice the ineffectual tack-on for corporate crime, "I'll ask my AG to fill me in from time to time."
This just smells to me like a funding exercise. Exploit the kids to get the emotional donations while soft-pedaling the corporate crooks (was the mortgage crisis that long ago?) so she can get some hefty dollars from the big players.

"provisions applicable to guns (none / 0) (#12)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:49:41 PM EST

don't call for increased penalties."?

She calls for renewing the "Assault Weapons Ban." Presumably there'd be penalties attached.

: Well...about Poland (none / 0) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST

Remember the great Bush line: "Remember the Polish" re the coalition.

Why do I get the strange feeling.... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:54:34 PM EST

that if Hillary proposed the immediate invasion and occupation of Poland quite a few of my TL friends would say the Poles had it coming:)

I know Hillary can't win with some people...now I know she can't lose with others.

We all could use a reminder, myself included, to look at the message and ignore the messenger.

Like BO, I'm conflicted (none / 0) (#14)
by Prabhata on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST

It's good she is being specific, but cyber crimes against minors is difficult to enforce without a Big Brother scheme. I don't believe is the government job to keep kids out of trouble in cyberspace. I don't want Big Brother to protect me and the kids.

We need a new federal law (none / 0) (#16)
by nellre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST

Children should be treated like children even if they have committed a crime.
I think we need to stop treating children as adults in criminal cases.
"Tried as an adult" is a travesty. Children are not adults, and to claim they should be held responsible for their crimes as if they were adult goes completely against what the scientific community knows regarding youthful impulse control etc.

Seconded (none / 0) (#24)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:05:18 PM EST

But I don't see any politician getting behind this law. Research shows that the parts of the brain that regulate behavior mature gradually and don't finish developing until a person is in their mid-20's. Obviously, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold young adults responsible for their actions, but age should be taken into account when they are held accountable. And it's just ridiculous to treat a pre-teen or even a young teenager as if they are an adult.


: The Washington State legislature (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by shoephone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST

recently eliminated mandatory minimums for juveniles. Judges now have the authority to decrease sentences for juveniles who would have been tried as adults, resulting in a reduction in jail time.

I don't expect anything good from pols on crime (none / 0) (#21)
by fuzzyone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST

and I was not going to bother commenting since its all the same old crap. But the I ran across this and thought it relevant and worth sharing. I'm not sure that there is anything really typical about this except that the kind of early childhood trauma described is, in my experience, very typical of what you see in many people who end up committing serious violent crimes:

Layton's story, like the stories of many criminals, begins with a litany of gut-wrenching stuff from a deplorable childhood -- raped by his brother, sexually molested and humiliated by his mother, beatings, fights, running away from home. By seventh grade he was sniffing glue, by eighth grade he was stealing cars, and by the age of 14 he was locked up in the juvenile detention center in East Los Angeles.

This omits one important common trauma: living in a neighborhood where violence, from gangs and police, is endemic and expected.

The real solution is to save the kids before they become criminals.

Hillary Knows Better (none / 0) (#27)
by Folkwolf101 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:45:18 PM EST

Child pornography on cyberspace is still a new fronteir that is getting updated and understood more almost daily. There are still fine lines between the worst of pedaphilia and the more innocent of youth dealing their hormones. Hopefully, her progarms wont be an elevation of "Thought Police," in which one's unconsomated imagination sends them to jail. In such cases, some of our greatest writers would have been sent to jail. Some of them were, actually. Hillary's no overactive active fool. she understands all levels of obscenity and crime.

Something I always wonder about (none / 0) (#31)
by shoephone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST

When politicians push for certain crimes to be re-categorized as federal crimes, what is really involved in making that happen? Is more taxpayer money allocated directly for the DOJ, or are resources actually taken from local and state justice agencies/programs and transferred to the fed?

I also wonder about the extra burden placed on our US attorneys. After the scandal of political appointments and politically-motivated firings, the morale of the current USAs is, apparently, at an all-time low.

No Death Penalty? Interesting. (none / 0) (#38)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST

Change of heart, or polling?