Biden will tackle inequality within the Criminal Justice System

The argument

Joe Biden has made it clear during his campaign that if he were to be elected, he would have a superior approach to policing. A large reason for this is Biden’s commitment to tackling inequality within the criminal justice system in order to create a more just system for Black Americans. Biden acknowledges the faults of the criminal justice system. A first focus of his is that the number of people incarcerated in this country as well as crime must be reduced. The federal income saved here can be reinvested in communities. Biden argues, “Our criminal justice system cannot be just unless we root out the racial, gender, and income-based disparities in the system,” and that the “criminal justice system must be focused on redemption and rehabilitation.” He also argues that the concept of for-profit prisons is misaligned with American values. All of these points of argument acknowledge the systemic failures of the criminal justice system, which all the more supports his plans for the system once elected. Donald Trump, comparatively, does not have the sensitivity, empathy, or tact to handle these issues, and has made it clear from his actions that Black America is not a priority. Therefore, this puts Biden in a superior position to have a more satisfactory response to criminal justice issues to the American public.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Joe Biden is merely articulating what the American and Democratic public wants to hear and is not tangibly different than President Trump. His own Vice President, Kamala Harris, rightly criticized him on his response to race. Furthermore, Joe Biden has been a politician amongst the facets of Washington for decades, and to this point has seen nothing of note done for the criminal justice system, even while working under a Black president. Donald Trump’s thoughts on policing and criminal justice are in comparison straightforward and not full of empty promises.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A stated commitment is a promise, and the premise cites campaign material as evidence of what would be delivered. The counter presses the standard test for such promises, a long prior record in office, and the most-cited item in that record runs the other way: the 1994 crime bill he authored, which critics link to the sentencing and incarceration disparities the commitment now proposes to address. [Rejecting P2] The mechanisms named lie largely outside presidential control. Most incarceration in the United States is under state authority and the federal system holds a minority of the prison population, so ending federal contracts with private operators and reinvesting federal savings reaches only part of the system the premise describes. Policing is likewise overwhelmingly local, funded and directed by cities and counties. [Rejecting P3] The comparison rests on character rather than on policy, and whatever one makes of the assessment, it is not a comparison of approaches to policing. The argument also does not engage the record it would need to — including the sentencing and prison-release legislation signed in 2018 — before concluding that one approach is better than the other.