Maybe this post came out more cranky than it needed to be. (As an aside, if you check you may find that Chris Dodd is not a Republican.)

As I see it, a core question may be why are issues of criminal justice and incarceration invisible in presidential campaigns? Does the fact that these issues seem invisible so far present us with opportunities to ask candidates about them?

I read with interest, on March 5, and commend to your attention the essay and collection of resources by Nathan Newman which was distributed by the Progressive States Dispatch on Re-Entry and Reingtegration of former prisoners. That survey of needs and actions going on in different states might help us inform candidates for national office.

I think there's something to be said in support of both Ezekiel and Daniel here (and Progressive States for the matter, who did release an excellent Dispatch on criminal justice issues yesterday). Ezekiel is trying to make a point - that the magnitude of the criminal justice system and the scope of its impact on American lives - needs to be a spotlighted issue in any national political campaign. And the fact that it's so overwhelmingly absent from candidates' lists of their "key" issues is frustrating; thus his frustrated tone appropriately conveys his larger point.

But yes, Daniel is saying something important too. It doesn't just fall to the candidates to thrust substantive policy discussions about criminal justice into the national spotlight, and furthermore, there are reasons why criminal justice issues are absent. Giuliani, for example, may not want to spend too much time patting himself on the back for introducing a policing policy that has lead to an obscene frequency of stop-and-frisks in NYC and long lists of superfluous and pointlessly punitive arrests. Calling the candidates out on their silence may be part of the equation, but we also need to set the agenda of criminal justice issues that need attention and work to frame goals and reforms on those issues, much as Ezekiel (and Progressive States) have done in their previous work.

Your headline is unfair to Dennis Kucinich, since, as your article makes clear, ALL the Presidential candidates do not agree that "Criminal Justice Isn't Important." That headline should have read: "Only One Presidential Candidate -- Dennis Kucinich -- Cares Enough about Criminal Justice to Post His Positions on his Web Site." But a reader doesn't find that out until seven paragraphs from the end, and I suspect most readers, trusting your headline to be accurate, did not get that far.

Since the headline is an error in fact, I'd like you to run a correction.

I think the reason why candites didn't put such thing on the top of their to do list is because no significant amount of Americans will change thier mind by such issues. Isn't it true that all candites automatically oppose criminal activities? It's like saying "no candidates oppose home growth terrorist, therefore all cadidates are for terrorists who are Americans. People don't vote! America is in danger" Of course candidates oppose home growth terrorists. However, they don't put them as their 1st thing to do because there are like 10 Americans crazy enough to become "terrorists" so far.

I agree, the headline is totally unfair to dennis Kucinich. This has made the google news alerts, so I hope that you will correct the headline.

David, I think you misunderstand what Ezekiel means by a criminal justice platform. A criminal justice platform isn't "do you support crime or not" though many people disagree over what should qualify as a crime. A criminal justice position could be whether a candidate supports building more prisons and increasing the prison population or if the candidate wants to find preventative means to reduce crime. It could be a candidate's stance on mandatory sentencing guidelines or issues of where and how prisoners are housed.

Check out Ezekiel's earlier posts for some more discussion of what criminal justice issues are: http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/criminal_justice/

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY right choice for 2008. I hear arguments that he'll never get elected and I point out he is the ONLY Democrat who has anything of substance to say about the issues. You've got Obama the 'pretty boy' with his hands deep in 'big money' pockets. Hillary has more baggage than a sherpa. Edwards can't make up his mind about the war and most of the others are good, but no cigar. Dennis Kucinich is REAL. He's never flip-flopped. He has the REAL issues in mind (not the smoke screen issues the 'network' news wants you to worry about). He's our man. He can reboot America.

Zeke, I really enjoyed this post. As someone who did read the whole thing, I was impressed to discover that Dennis Kucinich, I candidate I know very little about, has such a developed platform on these issues. Also couldn't believe that Hillary Clinton had no list of issues at all on her campaign site -- but it's true and makes her campaign seem even more bereft of genuine substance than the norm. I would also be interested to know more about the role criminal justice issues have played in presidential campaigns of the past--I vaguely remember stuff about Mike Dukaukis and Willie Horton, but it would interesting to get a refresher and contrast the role of these issues in the past with the present campaigns.

Good information, incorrect title!!!!! Of course, THE TITLE NEEDS TO STATE,'Candidate Kucinich; the OUTSTANDING EXCEPTION, or 'Dennis Kucinich, the ONLY pres.candidate to define criminal justice as IMPORTANT'. Your title reads as misinformation, contrary to your own findings, and seeming motivation for even writing the article. You're right. This IS important, and DOES MATTER. Kucinich deserves HEADLINE ACKNOWLEGEMENT for your findings. Criminal justice deserves KUCINICH'S LEADERSHIP and attention. Let's help wherever WE can. Thank you. JulieAnna

In Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point he reports that most people cannot remember more than 7 items at any given time. Beyond that, they can no longer sort information or pay attention to categories.

Should 'criminal justice' be among every candidate's top 7 issues? Certainly the list should include:
-stopping the Iraq War
-educating our children

After that?

It's no proof to me (much as I'd like to malign those Republican candidates) that something is terrible, if 'criminal justice' is not on anyone's list of the top 7.

Sorry. This argument doesn't hold water.

I agree with previous posts - you should have properly singled out Dennis in your headline. Truly a leader, but unless he starts to get the kind of positive media recognition that he so sorely deserves, he'll always remain "fringe" in the estimation of too many.

Godspeed, Kucinich Campaign!!

I found this article when searching for news on Dennis Kucinich. (It's really hard to find.) When I saw the headline, "2008 Candidates Agree! Criminal Justice Isn't Important", I thought, this can't be right. I've always found Kucinich to understand the issues, have solutions for dealing with them, and know the difference between right and wrong. Sure enough near the bottom of the article, I found out I was right... The headline is wrong!

To MSS: Apparently, many of the candidates have not read Tipping Point, because their sites often identify well over 7 "top" issues. For instance, Duncan Hunter discusses 24, Brownback 13 (and actually delves into 15), Obama 11, Biden and Romney 10, and Kucinich 10, with a mere 90 more listed on the same page. So, in fact, regarding these candidates (other than Kucinich), my complaint is that even when their lists appear somewhat exhaustive, there is not a single mention of criminal justice issues. You are saying maybe it's not a big deal that criminal justice is not in a candidate's top 7; how about top 10? Or 13? Or 24?

A point that does hold water, and quite a bit, is that whether a candidate has identified 7 key issues or 24, it is clear not only that criminal justice conerns are not their top priorities, but are not even worth mentioning. You place Stopping the War and Educating Our Children as two issues you think every candidate should include as a priority issues (perhaps you would have written a cranky blog if none of their sites had mentioned one of these issues), but would you consider any of the following additional top 7 issues facing our nation today: Gambling? Competing with Asia? Reforming the UN? Eminent Domain? Parental Rights? Enforcement of Federal Obscenity Laws? The New Homestead Act? Gun Rights? Reconciling Faith and Politics? Partisanship? Defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Defunding for the National Endowment of the Arts? Removing sexual orientation as a protected class? These are all issues that various candidates put forth as "key", and clearly more important than a criminal justice system that has gotten the attention of numerous human rights organizations.

In my opinion, it is amazing, and unacceptable, that a glaring domestic crisis in America, one that causes immense fiscal, emotional, and social strain, is nowhere on any candidates' visible agenda, save for one. To me, that's proof of shortsighted politics; proof that, yet again, issues that disporportionately harm the poor and people of color are slighted; and proof that, not surprisingly, candidates are more concerned with people who can give them handsome donations (and, of course, who can exercise their right to vote).

As for proof of what's "terrible": the fact that America has 2.3 million people in prison. If that's not an important "issue", then what is? Let me guess ... Gambling and Eminent Domain?

To JulieAnna Miller: As a member of the Drum Major Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit organization, I can't endorse specific candidates. I am glad to see that there are activists engaged in
these issues and on behalf of the candidates, as such participation will only benefit any campaign and enliven the discourse surrounding these important topics.

At Last!!!!! I find mention of Dennis Kucinich's candidacy. Thank you so much for not joining the 'Ignore Kucinich' conspiracy...your blog stands out as one of the very few who recognize Kucinich and take his (very sensible!) platform seriously.

Thanks for the article and props to Kucinich, raspberries to Hillary and the rest.

Unlike many of your previous posters, I am a netroots activist on the "drugs/prison" issue. It's the elephant in the room of our polity. When the incarceration levels surpass the most infamous totalitarian regimes of all time - Soviet and current Russia, China, South Africa under apartheid - something's wrong. When the Supreme and appellate courts deny a dying woman the right to use a homegrown plant to ease her suffering because of Congress' proclamation that a supposed interstate trade in marijuana is taboo, it's like, WTF. You have to be a real imbecile, stone heart or dyed in the wool hippie hater not to think this is wrong, that Jefferson would have approved of that heavy-handed interventions into peoples "liberty" and "freedom", two highly overrated features of "democracy, American 20c style".

A bunch of us tried in 2004 to engage Kerry on his blog about medical marijuana and having a little profiles in courage moment about that. The admins got pissed off when we refused to accept Kerry's refusal to take a position other than an ambiguous wink and nod in our direction and kept burying the thread and archiving it every couple of days as a way of squelching the discussion without totally moderating it off in a heavy-handed manner. It was the most popular topic on the board, despite the admins's efforts to bury the discussion. The other candidates were no better: Howard Dean, beloved by Kos and all of those netroots activists types, didn't like medical marijuana and wouldn't stick his neck out.

And the beat goes on. Many people see Eliot Spitzer as some kind of modern day combination of Dick Tracy and shining knight in armour, but he has totally run away from Rockefeller Drug Law reform and medical marijuana, just like the other chickensh*t dems. Spitzer says that he's against mj because he's heard other substances (e.g., marinol) are more effective, but he's wrong, that's a prohibitionist myth and lie. Even the 9th Circuit appeals court accepted Angel Raich's claim that marinol was NOT as effective as marijuana and could not substitute, and without it she would die. Unfortunately, "its against the law", so you die, Ms. Raich. Sorry, thanks for playing, welcome to the USSA.

Bill Clinton, like the triangulating DNC and Hillary, learned not to touch this issue, and in fact, to be bigger dicks so that people don't suspect you of being druggie soft on crime types who will harm your precious children. Marijuana penalties were ratcheted upwards, arrests doubled from ~300,000/yr to the current 750,000 and that hideous ad campaign was begun to turn public opinion specifically against medical marijuana while also stepping up DEA SWAT team raids in states like Cali that allowed mj, raids that left paralyzed dying patients handcuffed to their beds while the jack booted thugs cut down gardens and took them away in trucks, like the grinch who stole christmas or the best totalitarian storm troopers. Thank Clinton. Hillary? Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, that means, uh, you can't fool me again, or something.

And you trolls above see nothing wrong with this picture in "your" America or that candidates should continue to supress this discussion? Did I or anyone else ever vote for this prohibition? Not that I recall, and I've certainly voted against it's main proponents: Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes.

Ezekiel-

How does correcting an inaccurate headline show support for a particular candidate? You stated that "all candidates agree", but they do not. If you were to say "all candidates except one" I could accept that, but to be fair and accurate in your reporting you should state something to the effect that "Kucinich is the only Presidential nominee with a position on Criminal Justice issues."

That statement is not an endorsement, it is a fact. I realize that our media is plagued with the inablility to distinguish a fact from an opinion from a bald faced lie, but I would hope that your readers know the difference. I don't see how stating the truth would compromise a persons ethics, no matter what position they hold. Surely you intend your work to be as honest and accurate as possible? How about this "12 out of 13 2008 Candidates Agree! Criminal Justice Isn't Important' ? At least that's accurate, and it might invite people to read your post to find out who the one stand-out is.