Why the hell do Republicans hate criminal justice reform?

[Santander]

In many countries, any criminal record can ruin your life. America is actually a rare exception where misdemeanors are something middle-class folk can basically laugh off as youthful indiscretion.

Out of curiosity, in which countries are criminal records the most life-ruining?  My impression is that the United States is fairly far on the punitive end of that scale, but I'm not too familiar with how other countries handle crime.

The US is quite punitive to felons, but job applications and such in the US generally only ask about felony convictions, and not all criminal convictions like they do in other countries. I believe the US is also quite progressive when it comes to "ban the box" legislation, although that is partly because the criminal justice system is rather cruel compared to some European countries.

That's interesting.  So places like Norway which have fairly luxurious prisons and light sentences....only to slap people with a criminal record that's a de-facto "never employable again" sentence?

Well, I think Norway is quite progressive on prisoner "rehabilitation" and re-entry into society. I was thinking of non-Nordic countries, especially other Anglo-Saxon countries, although the UK has reformed in this regard too.

[Badger]

Mainly cause of the huge crime wave from the 1970s-early 1990s and many republicans grew up then . Also the tough on crime policies of the 1990s worked so that's why they continue to support it .


As for me I support decriminalizing or making  drug possession a misdemeanor.


On the idea of giving felons voting rights my answer to that is heck no

What about giving ex-felons their voting rights back? There are plenty of states who make it extremely difficult to get your voting rights back after serving a prison sentence.

If it's a  violent crime , or they committed a major robbery no they shouldn't get their voting rights back . If it's drug possession yes but that's cause they shouldn't be felonies in first place

I can understand the argument for denying the franchise to parolees/those on probation, even if I don't agree myself. Anything after that is ludicrous. They've paid their debt to society by going to prison.

Seriously. If even someone convicted of a violent felony who does their time and successfully completes parole in their twenties or 30s, why shouldn't they be able to register to vote and participate in community life in their 50s or 60s?

Hey old school. I'm not asking this is a rhetorical question. Please advise.

[Adam Griffin]

Because criminal justice reform would benefit minorities. And Republicans don't care about minorities.

If only it were that innocent. They of course care about minorities - negatively. They understand damn good and well that a lack of reform is "good" from their perspective in that it continues to keep down the people they dislike. Get a crowd of 100 of Naso's "working-class whites" in a room and ask everybody to stand up who would prefer to be black instead of white. None of them will, and it's because they know in their hearts of hearts (even if it's subconscious) that there's no "reverse racism" equivalent and/or auxiliary minority benefits that outweigh the benefits of being white. Add to that the simplistic thinking that equality or the lack thereof is always a zero-sum game and it's very, very clear.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Which Republicans are we talking about here?  Certainly not Republican Governors, on the whole. 

[publicunofficial]

The entire conservative ethos is "The people in power deserve to be there, the current hierarchy is just and challenging it will cause society to collapse." Protecting and enforcing the police state just makes sense.