“Justice” for Whom? Left-leaning urban prosecutors are working to undo the successes..

“Justice” for Whom? Left-leaning urban prosecutors are working to undo the successes of the crime-fighting revolution.

A leftward shift among urban prosecutors has become a race to the bottom. In Boston, Rachael Rollins campaigned on ending prosecutions for “minor” offenses, such as petty larceny. In Manhattan, Cy Vance promised to stop prosecuting marijuana possession and fare evasion. Chicago’s Kim Foxx, who recused herself from disgraced actor Jussie Smollett’s prosecution, has gone all-in on “restorative justice.” Philadelphia D.A. Larry Krasner wants to reduce sentences for even the most violent offenders, and in Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby’s commitment to marijuana decriminalization led her to decline to prosecute a man found with 16 pounds of pot in his car.

Among this progressive cohort is Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez. This week, Gonzalez released his “Action Plan for Brooklyn,” which lays out the reforms he’ll implement as part of his Justice 2020 Initiative. The plan is based on bad ideas and misguided assumptions that could jeopardize the public-safety gains of the 1990s and 2000s. It is predicated largely on the notion that New York City over-incarcerates, but the state and city have already substantially reduced their incarcerated populations: New York State cut its prison population by 31 percent between 1999 and 2016, and between 1998 and 2018, New York City’s average daily jail population plummeted, from more than 17,500 inmates to fewer than 8,900—a decrease of about 50 percent.

Justice 2020 calls for “focusing resources on the drivers of crime,” but New York City already does that. Only 6,400 (less than 2 percent) of the NYPD’s 394,000 annual arrests result in a prison sentence, according to a report published by the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, and only about 10 percent of NYPD arrests result in a defendant being jailed for pretrial detainment. New York City’s jails are not filled with people arrested for littering; they are reserved for the worst of the city’s worst. The MOCJ reports that “91 percent of the pretrial population at Rikers is held on a felony charge (49 percent on violent felony charges),” and “over half of the jail population is facing multiple cases.” Most of those defendants have prior criminal histories and are well past their “second chance.” According to the city’s Department of Correction, the “percentage of people in jails who have previously been admitted is historically around 75 percent.” There just isn’t much room for further decarceration in New York, without releasing chronic and often violent offenders.

It’s tempting to look at the steady declines of New York’s prison and jail populations, and the contemporaneous decline in violent crime, as proof that large-scale decarceration doesn’t undermine public safety. The crime decline was, however, preceded by significant rises in both the state prison and city jail populations—and those upticks led to the incapacitation of would-be offenders, allowing neighborhoods to heal from the wounds inflicted by chronic offenders. The incapacitation lesson was reflected throughout the gradual decline in the state’s prison population; during that period, time served decreased for drug and property offenses but increased for violent offenses. From 1990 to 2009, the average time served for New York State prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes went from 4.9 years to 6.0 years. The decline in incarceration and crime also corresponded with the adoption of an aggressive, data-driven community-policing model. Focused on lower-stakes interventions that were less likely to result in lengthy sentences, proactive policing led to significant drops in violent crime.

District Attorney Gonzalez contends that increases in incarceration “had the effect of destabilizing families,” which “fail to make us safer.” The “destabilizing families” argument takes for granted that the absence of these people—mostly fathers—from the home has negative effects on their children. Some compelling evidence suggests otherwise. One study, published in the journal Childhood Development, found that the presence of a father who engaged in “high levels of antisocial behavior” in the home was worse for children than the absence of a pro-social father. The authors concluded that “the advantages of growing up in a two-parent family may be negated when one or both parents are characterized by a history of antisocial behavior.” Another study of children in Colombia found that “conditional on conviction, parental incarceration increases years of education by 0.6 years for the children whose parents were on the margin of incarceration.” To the extent that people who find themselves in jail or prison engage in high levels of antisocial behavior—not hard to imagine—the impact of their absence (at least on children) may well be better than that of their presence.

It’s simply a myth that a larger imprisoned population didn’t make us safer. Even the most liberal critics of the criminal-justice system have acknowledged the role that incarceration played in America’s violent-crime decline. A 2005 report of The Sentencing Project found that “About 25 percent of the decline in violent crime can be attributed to increased incarceration.” And in his recent book, Uneasy Peace, NYU sociologist Patrick Sharkey concedes that “there is no longer much debate that mass incarceration played a role in reducing violence.”

Gonzalez believes that there are more “effective ways to hold accountable those who do harm” than incarceration, but his plan makes vague reference only to “early” and “community-based interventions.” He offers no data to support the idea that other kinds of interventions can more effectively prevent an offender from harming the public. Prisons and jails offer inmates a range of rehabilitative programming options, from counseling to educational and vocational development, but most state prisoners in the U.S.—83 percent—will recidivate. That number doesn’t instill confidence in non-carceral interventions aimed at reducing a defendant’s likelihood to reoffend.

Gonzalez unveiled Justice 2020 not long after the NYPD rolled out its own plan to address elevated levels of serious crime in six precincts throughout the city. Two of those six precincts are in the Brooklyn North patrol bureau, where homicides are up 150 percent and shootings are up 69 percent so far this year, through March 3. In Brooklyn South, homicides are up 80 percent, year-to-date. If Gonzalez moves forward with his plan to let more offenders walk the streets, a short-term spike could become more enduring, as well as an unwelcome suggestion that New York is heading back to the bad old days.

One of the things I am happy to see the liberals take up is their growing consensus on dismissing “resisting arrest” charges when there’s no accompanying charge to justify the arrest in the first place.

How can you be arrested for resisting arrest when that’s all you were arrested for?

It’s nonsense and it needs to stop.

In this case I may not like who’s stopping it but I’m glad they’re doing it.

Seems to me the question revolves around former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani’s “Broken Window” theory. To clean up NYC, he had the NYPD enforce everything, believing that if you want to stop major crimes you can’t permit an environment of petty lawlessness. In his case, it worked.

Prosecutors do have discretion which cases to prosecute, but they shouldn’t dictate the law itself. If they want to legalize pot then do it. If they don’t want to enforce toll road fees then just stop collecting or ask for donations. I am sympathetic to the idea that we are overly regulated, overly taxed, overly observed and overly enforced. But I am not sympathetic to selective prosecution (that leads to corruption and coercion by prosecutors who are already overzealous when they do bring cases) anymore than I am to black robes legislating from the bench.

I think these candidates - it is endemic on the left - want more radical change but are afraid to admit what they truly believe. They just want to to incrementally shift the Overton Window. That is how Obamacare, a disaster of a law and boondoggle for insurance companies, has now shifted to “Medicare for All” - a horrible idea that will basically make all doctors employees of the federal government. Lying to the American people has become habitual for politicians but the stakes a much higher now. There is a slippery slope we can see it happening now, open advocacy for idiotic unworkable socialist dreams.

I think there is an opening here for GOP candidates. When these leftists start talking about things like dropping enforcement GOP candidates should attack them as a matter of principle. What does the GOP stand for? Limited government and the equal protection under the law among a few other core principles. So if these leftists advocate this kind of half-arsed change, call them on it for being weasels. Tell them do it the right way. Reduce the size of government and change the laws.

Oh I agree with that and much more. How about confiscation of property before trial? That has to stop. And really, we don’t have a fair justice system. The left used to say we had a 2-tier justice system, but really we have 3 tiers of justice. The super powerful can get away with anything. The rich can afford to fight. The rest of us, if we are charged with anything at all invariably end up being charged with many different crimes. Rob a bank you don’t just get bank robbery charges. You get conspiracy, unlawful use of a firearm, evasion, kidnapping, etc. Prosecutors throw everything at a person because they don’t want a trial. They want to scare the suspect into a plea. So when someone is faced with 10 counts and 40 years in prison, they make the calculation that it is better to plea it down and avoid the risk of losing it all at trial, and the prosecutor chalks it up as a “win”. That is not justice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.