MINNEAPOLIS, MN – Kamala Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is a significant choice for those invested in criminal justice reform, according to information compiled from a recent Twitter/X thread by David Menschel on the Minnesota governor.
Menchel said, over recent years, Walz has enacted groundbreaking reforms that have reshaped the state’s approach to justice and rehabilitation.
Under Walz’s leadership, Minnesota has legalized and regulated marijuana, providing a new model for drug policy, said Menchel, noting his state has also capped probation terms at five years for most felonies and eliminated supervision fees, marking a shift toward a more rehabilitative criminal justice system.
Further reforms include automatically expunging criminal records for many non-violent offenses, and removing the costly and cumbersome process of petitioning the court, Menchel writes, adding Walz has also abolished life sentences without parole for juveniles, ensuring that those serving sentences longer than 15 years become eligible for parole after 15 years.
To promote community-based solutions, Walz established the Office of Restorative Practices to address juvenile offenses through alternative methods, according to the twitter feed.
And, reforms to the felony murder rule mean individuals who did not intend to kill cannot be charged with first-degree murder, and those not acting with extreme recklessness are excluded from second-degree murder charges, said Menschel.
Walz’s administration introduced “earned release,” allowing incarcerated individuals to reduce their sentences through good behavior and participation in rehabilitative programs, and Minnesota has also embraced harm reduction practices, including decriminalizing drug paraphernalia and supporting needle exchange programs, Menschel notes.
A streamlined pardon process now allows easier access to relief, with decisions requiring only a majority vote rather than unanimity, and Menschel said Minnesota has also made prison and jail phone calls free, restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated people on probation or parole, and ended prison gerrymandering, which distorts census counts and skews political power.
Walz’s commitment to criminal justice reform extends to judicial appointments, having appointed two former public defenders to the state supreme court, said Menschel, noting Walz’ wife, Gwen Walz, has worked nationally to expand educational opportunities for incarcerated individuals.
Twitter/X users noted Walz signed a bill allowing progressive district attorneys in Hennepin and Ramsey counties and eventually across the state to reduce sentences for individuals who no longer pose a public safety risk.
“Tim Walz is a significant choice for those invested in criminal justice reform”
Criminals across the country back Walz 100%.
That’s a strange place to go, but ok.
How is it strange?
If you’re a criminal why wouldn’t you want someone who is soft on crime in the White House?
We all saw how Walz handled the BLM riots where he let buildings get burned and businesses looted with little repercussion.
On multiple levels.
On a personal level, you are constantly complaining that we moderate your posts too strictly but then you post something like that that is clearly attempting to inflame rather than elicit dialogue.
On a policy level, you have chosen to conflate criminal justice reformers with criminals.
It seems to me that a much more fruitful discussion would discussing the extent to which these policy improve things over the status quo and whether or not they should gain more wide approval or not. That would be a productive and non-trolling conversation to have.
The bottom line is that your lead plays away from fruitful discourse and that was disappointing.
Nice try Keith but no cigar.
Audio shows Trump praised Walz in 2020 for handling of riots after George Floyd’s death
“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers have been assailing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, over his handling of the rioting in his state in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in 2020 — but in a phone call with governors that included Walz, then-President Trump praised his handling of the situation and said he was “very happy” with it.
In the audio obtained by CBS News, Trump is heard saying, “I know Governor Walz is on the phone, and we spoke, and I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/audio-donald-trump-praised-tim-walz-handling-riots-george-floyd-death-2020/
“On a personal level, you are constantly complaining that we moderate your posts too strictly but then you post something like that that is clearly attempting to inflame rather than elicit dialogue.”
So if I don’t agree with your policies then I’m inflaming? So you only like discourse that feeds into your views? Maybe some of the Vanguard articles and opinions are inflaming to others, did that ever occur to you?
Lets compare three statements that I think are safe to say, I don’t agree with.
Example 1: “Criminals across the country back Walz 100%.”
Example 2: “We all saw how Walz handled the BLM riots where he let buildings get burned and businesses looted with little repercussion.”
Example 3: Walz’s views on criminal justice reform will lead to an increase in crime.
Example 3 is clearly a debatable claim, but clearly something that would be permissible. Example 2, is a little inflammatory, but still within the realm of permissibility. Example 1 is simply an attempt to inflame.
If you want to post comments like Example 1, more often than not they will not be published. Example 2 is probably on safe grounds. Example 3 is never going to be moderated.
So example one will never get published?
What rules are broken. I often see posts that are allowed that are much more inflammatory than that but are allowed because they come from a leftist point of view. I think my statement makes a point, that someone in prison or someone who breaks the law would rather have someone like Walz in power who might shorten their sentence because of his progressive justice views. I think you’re showing your bias and being a little too sensitive this morning.
What I actually said: “If you want to post comments like Example 1, more often than not they will not be published. “
“What I actually said: “If you want to post comments like Example 1, more often than not they will not be published.”
And why is that when you have allowed much more inflammatory posts coming from the left point of view to get past the moderation queue? It’s not like I’m calling some person or group “Christofascist”. You’re putting yourself in a corner here while trying to twist what I wrote into something more than it is. I made a point without calling anyone names or breaking any Vanguard rules.
Look under the section of “generic insults”
“Look under the section of “generic insults””
Wow, you’re really reaching now. With a little time I could post you a long list of insults posted on here that were way past “generic” that you didn’t complain about. But it’s your blog, do as you wish. But you have to know that you’re not being fair and impartial.
BTW, just say the word and ban me from posting here. I’ll not post anymore if that’s what you want. I’ll wear that as a badge of honor. But getting all worked up about what I posted this morning is ridiculous.
AP Styleguide has updated on this stuff: https://jlusa.org/2024/06/25/new-associated-press-stylebook-could-completely-reform-how-media-covers-criminal-justice/
You’ll notice in our articles we have not used terms like “criminals” “inmates” “felons” “defendants” for some time. It falls under the category generic insult very clearly. You could have let my response of your comment being strange go, instead you chose to drill down (I decided to making this a teaching moment instead of merely arguing with you). Any way, the concept of generic insult should cover some of your complaints as well and need to be enforced equitably. I agree with you there.
“You’ll notice in our articles we have not used terms like “criminals” “inmates” “felons” “defendants” for some time.”
Really, from the article above:
“Further reforms include automatically expunging “””criminal””” records”
A “criminal record” has a specific definition but it is not the same as calling someone a pejorative term – ie calling them a “criminal.” Just like there is a difference between saying that someone has a criminal conviction and calling them a convict.
Then how about this from the title of a Vanguard article yesterday?
Defense, Anti-Death Penalty Group Plead to Stop Execution of Brain-Damaged Oklahoma Death Row “Inmate”
I already talked to my staff about that – many, many times.
I mean you did say “inmates’ is now a taboo term on the Vanguard.
“You’ll notice in our articles we have not used terms like “criminals” “inmates” “felons” “defendants” for some time.”
“I already talked to my staff about that”
LOL, that’s all I can say at this point.
Give it up David while you are behind.
Whatever
If Trump thought that Walz was doing a poor job as Governor why did Trump appoint Walz to the Council of Governors?
The right wing has nothing except their perpetual grievances. Period. Just look at the first comment by a conservative in this thread. Complete twaddle and just a right-wing shibboleth that cannot be supported by any credible evidence.
That is literally all they have. I mean, just look at “the other site” here in town for the grievance-filled sweeping claims that can’t be supported with credible evidence. They look and sound like the Pick a Little Ladies from “The Music Man.”
And sorry, right wingers. “Christofascist” is fair game. It’s another word for “Christian nationalist.” That term objectively describes the groups’ aims, and doesn’t constitute “hate speech,” contrary to what people like KO try to claim.
And I just love how many “nice polite bystanders” in the comments here (and elsewhere) are the first to go after liberals for biting back, but don’t remark on anything that the right wing does to attack Democrats and liberals.
But, sure. It is conservatives who are wronged. Cry me a river.
There you go David. Here’s a prime example of what I’ve been talking about. You want to tell me I can’t use words like “criminals” because it’s somehow a generic insult but “Christofascists” must be okay because you allowed the comment above to post.
This is what commenters on your blog don’t understand, the rules are not the same for everyone.
I allowed that comment because it was a continuation of the discussion of moderation practices and vocabulary which had been previously permitted on this thread.
My opinion is that Christo-fascist is a pejorative, while Christian nationalist is a descriptive term.
It would be far better if people would stop trolling, and avoid being intentionally provocative.
Thank you for this view.
I was not being intentionally provocative. I, myself, do not consider “christo-fascist” pejorative. Was “fascist” considered pejorative during WWII? And “christo” is merely the description of the type of fascism deployed.
Now that you have explained the difference I will use the term the site prefers.
It’s not like conservatives won’t have grievances about “Christian nationalist” too, I would wager.
Is there a problem with my comment? Did I use a word that’s now considered a generic insult? Tell me why my comment isn’t posting so I know in the future not to make that mistake again.