« Two articles asking the hard questions about criminal justice reform circa summer 2016 | Main | Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects due process challenge to use of risk-assessment instrument at sentencing »

July 13, 2016

What should we make of Donald Trump declaring himself the "law and order" and "compassion" candidate?

At the risk of prompting an excessive focus on politics over policy, I am genuinely interested in hearing reader thoughts on this recent Politico article, headlined "Trump: 'I am the law and order candidate'."  Here are excerpts:

Hillary Clinton can add the title “secretary of the status quo” to her political résumé, according to Donald Trump, who on Monday also bestowed another moniker upon himself: “the law and order candidate.”

“We must maintain law and order at the highest level or we will cease to have a country, 100 percent,” he said during a speech in Virginia Beach, Virginia, in which he heaped praise upon America’s law enforcement officers. “We will cease to have a country. I am the law and order candidate.”...

“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is weak, ineffective, pandering, and as proven by her recent email scandal which was an embarrassment not only to her but to the entire nation as a whole,” Trump continued. “Not only am I the law and order candidate, but I am also the candidate of compassion, believe it. The candidate of compassion.”

Trump’s remarks backing America’s law enforcement officers came at the top of a planned speech in which he outlined plans to fix health care for U.S. military veterans and offered a 10-point proposal to reform the troubled Department of Veterans Affairs....

The presumptive Republican nominee was preceded at his rally by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who likewise praised law enforcement. “We need a president who will once again put law and order at the top of the priority of the presidency in this country,” Christie said. “Our police officers, the men and women who stand each day to protect us need to understand that the president of the united states and his administration will give them the benefit of the doubt, not always believe that what they’ve done is somehow wrong.”

July 13, 2016 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

Comments

▼ NJ Gov, Christie (my emphasis) ▼
“Our police officers, the men and women who stand each day to protect us need to understand that the president of the united states and his administration will give them the benefit of the doubt, not always believe that what they’ve done is somehow wrong.”

IF NO doubt , THEN unnecessary to offer a benefit of doubt , to either side ‼

IF alleged victim is a thug , and officer(s)’s conduct was reasonable , so be it ‼
IF officers(s) is/are (a) thug(s) , and their conduct was UNreasonable , THEN appropriately sanction the officer(s) , including but not limited to imprisonment* ‼

* ☺ Sorry , Q♥s , no off with their heads ☺

Posted by: My friend Docile „ the Nemo Me ♠ Impune Lacessit ♂ & Kind Soul | Jul 13, 2016 12:50:36 PM

Typical Republican message since Richard Nixon (if not earlier). The fact is that the federal government's role in law and order is primarily financial -- what grants are given to the states for law enforcement and criminal justice programs and what strings are attached to those grants. The only thing potentially significant in his statement s if you read his language about giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt as meaning that he will not allow the Civil Rights Division to enforce civil rights laws against police departments that engage in questionable practices unless those practices are improper beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by: tmm | Jul 13, 2016 2:04:46 PM

I find it hard to take Trump seriously but to the degree I would as tmm says, that sounds like boilerplate.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 13, 2016 2:48:05 PM

Joe, given the trite nonsense you've peddled in here--you have little business yapping about whom you take seriously.

Posted by: federalist | Jul 13, 2016 4:50:44 PM

The guy with thousands of lawsuits over his business practices is the law and order candidate?

This is worse than boilerplate - it is pandering by trying to appeal to those who want toughness and reform. It says nothing of substance.

Posted by: Paul | Jul 15, 2016 10:20:36 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB