As we get closer and closer to the big November election, it’s important to remember our local races. We’ll be voting on a number of Constitutional amendments you should consider, and we’ll have a series of guests on to discuss those in the coming days. Early voting is right around the corner - visit the elections portal at the Secretary of State’s website for information about where, when and how you can begin voting.
We have a bunch of judgeship races going on as well as a race for District Attorney, and we’ve had very little interaction with these candidates because of the challenges presented by the COVID pandemic. We’ve not really had a situation yet where we've been able to compel them to articulate what it is they mean when they talk about reimagining police, reimagining criminal justice, and why they think the criminal justice system is systemically racist.
I believe those are details that need to be fleshed out. Are we going to be electing judicial activists? The problem with that is that you never know the breadth and depth of their activism, where it begins and where it ends. Obviously, there’s a move afoot that in the administration of justice and the meting out of punishment, we act on the lighter side. Progressive DA’s and judges in other parts of the country have already decided that there should be no jail time as a sanction for certain non-violent crimes. For example, they’re completely opposed to “Three Strikes” doctrine.
Their way to deal with this is not to give judges more discretion based on their ideology, and that’s basically what they’re asking for. When they talk about reimagining criminal justice, what they're saying is that they want a more lax approach to sentencing people for their crimes. They want the discretion to be able to do that. Let’s put an end to this conversation about disproportionate impact. Disproportionate impact is not brought about by the police, it’s brought about by the judiciary, and the way we bring an end to that is by using an “If-Then” model, where we no longer have 10 to 99 years for an armed robbery, first offense. So what would be the deciding factor, if there’s no other crimes that were charged for that? If it were a clean armed robbery case, how do we determine 10 years or 99? How do we justify the differences? It’s really difficult. “If” it's your first offense, no previous criminal history, “then” you get a certain sentence.
When we start to tie the hands of judges relative to discretion, what we’re going to find is that the disproportionate impact number is going to go away. It’s not going to be an argument. There is no latitude as it relates to these crimes. Because one of the dangerous situations that arises, whenever you elect judges purely based on their ideology, whether that’s ‘lock em up and throw away the key,’ or ‘let them vent...’ it’s all wrong. What you’re asking for are activists. I’m not a hypocrite when I talk about this issue, because practicing judicial activism goes both ways, and we shouldn’t be fostering that in this country.
I’ve been advocating for the “If-Then” model for years. It makes decisions in the DA’s office a lot easier because there’s not a whole lot you can plea bargain one way or the other. Let’s remove it! Same thing with the frailties of the public defender's office - “If-Then.” It’s harsh but it eliminates the sideshows, smokescreens, all the excuses that get deployed on both sides of the issue, whether that be about the defendant or the system.
One thing I know for sure - we are not asking the hard questions of these candidates, and we need to. If you look at the 59 major cities across this country where crime is up, they have a lot in common - progressive approaches to criminal justice.
