- Argument‹2 of 2
There is bipartisan interest in maintaining the status quo
The crises of mass incarceration, drug abuse and police violence in the US are the creations of Republicans and Democrats. There is political consensus against the radical overhaul of the criminal justice system necessary to address these issues.
The argument
The major crises of mass incarceration, aggressive policing and drug abuse facing the US criminal justice system are a product of Democrat and Republican policies. Biden has a history of supporting legislation that has contributed to the current crises, favouring harsher sentencing and crackdowns on drugs. Trump supports aggressive policing and has failed to condemn police brutality. Biden is campaigning with pledges to modestly reform policing and the criminal justice system, but he cannot be trusted to do so given his political history. The best way to understand how each candidate would manage the criminal justice system is to consider how their parties have governed in the recent past. Neither party has been willing to implement substantial reforms, and most changes have been piecemeal or tokenistic. Addressing the current criminal justice crises would require a major overhaul of US society, and any president would be hesitant to bring this forward, let alone one of two candidates who have a history of favouring strong policing.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Biden's criminal justice agenda represents a significant departure from his previous actions on this issue. He has the support of Democrats and would have support in putting his plans into law. His proposed reforms to policing and criminal justice are significant and would make a welcome impact on American lives. Trump's presidency and the recent wave of protests have taught established Democrats that substantial criminal justice reform is necessary, and they will deliver on this if Biden is elected.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Shared responsibility for how a system was built does not entail equivalent future conduct. Parties change position, and the argument's own observation that the protests taught established Democrats that substantial reform is necessary is evidence that they do. [Rejecting P2] The two records set side by side are not the same kind of record. The premise places a past legislative history that the candidate has since repudiated alongside another candidate's current stated position, then treats them as equivalent, discounting campaign pledges on one side while taking positions at face value on the other. "Any president would be hesitant" also proves too much: on that reasoning no two candidates could ever differ on this issue.