The Political Dynamics of Justice Reform in The U.S.

But the Democratic authors of the law were clear about their intentions: supporting a
more punitive criminal justice system to rebuke criticisms that they were “soft on crime.”
(The legislation wasn’t enough for some Republicans in Congress, who complained the
bill included too much social spending and pledged to pass tougher laws as part of
their 1994 campaign to take back the House.) On the website for his 2008 presidential
campaign, Biden referred to the 1994 crime law as the “Biden Crime Law” and bragged
that it encouraged states to effectively increase their prison sentences by paying them
to build more prisons — a direct endorsement of more incarceration.
Asked about Biden’s support for the law, the Biden campaign pointed to provisions like
the Violence Against Women Act, the 10-year assault weapons ban, firearm
background check funding, money for police, support for addiction treatment, and a
“safety valve” that let a limited number of low-level first-time drug offenders avoid
mandatory minimum sentences. They also cited some of his past criticisms of punitive
sentences, including the three-strikes measure, and pointed out that a Republicancontrolled
Congress later cut funding drastically for drug courts.
In a 2016 interview with CNBC, Biden said that there were parts of the law he’d
change, but argued that “by and large what it really did, it restored American cities.”
(Although crime has dropped since the ’90s, the research suggests punitive criminal
justice policies played at best a small, partial role in that decrease.)
Biden also took credit for the law: “As a matter of fact, I drafted the bill, if you
remember.”
The 1994 Law Didn’t Really Cause Mass Incarceration
In a 2019 context, the 1994 law has been criticized for contributing to mass
incarceration. This goes back to at least 2016, when activists and writers like Michelle
Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, cited the law to criticize Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign.
Facing these kinds of criticisms, Biden has argued that the 1994 law, as a federal
statute, couldn’t have caused mass incarceration. He argued in May, “Folks, let’s get
something straight: 92 out of every 100 prisoners end up behind bars are in a state
prison, not a federal prison. This idea that the crime bill generated mass incarceration
— it did not generate mass incarceration.”
This is a bit of a dodge as to whether the bill intended to increase incarceration, but
Biden is generally correct that the bill, despite its intentions, did not actually succeed at
expanding incarceration much.
Beyond the changes to hike federal penalties, the 1994 law attempted to encourage
states to adopt harsher criminal justice policies. It provided money for states to build
prisons and adopt “truth in sentencing” laws that increase prison sentences by requiring
inmates to serve out at least 85 percent of their prison sentences without an early
Page 89 of 262