 
San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris.
Photos by Luke Thomas
By Paul Henderson, Chief of Administration, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, special to FCJ
July 10, 2009
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That’s apparently the approach of the authors of your recent opinion piece, “Defending the Public Defender”, where Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh — both former public defenders—wrote a piece accusing the city of robbing the Public Defender to pay the District Attorney. They also personally attacked Board President David Chiu for not being sufficiently “progressive.” Why? He dared to suggest that prosecuting serious and violent crime in San Francisco may be as important as defending the accused.
These unfounded attacks reflect how alarmingly out of touch some folks have become regarding what being truly progressive means. To suggest that caring about whether the City has enough resources to prosecute criminals and protect victims is not progressive is breathtakingly misleading.
At a time when every worthy city program is facing devastating cuts, when prosecutors, nurses, shelters, parks, after-school programs, and hospital wards have been cut to the bone, it is astonishing for one political leader—no matter how well-intentioned and no matter how lofty his mission—to claim that his needs trumps everything and everyone else.
The District Attorney’s Office, where I have served for 14 years, hasn’t been spared. Over the last year, we’ve lost 25 positions representing $1.8 million—9 prosecutors, 6 sworn investigators, 3 crime victim advocates, and others. Looking back two years, we’ve lost 14 prosecutors. We have fewer victim advocates to support victims, fewer investigators to find witnesses, fewer paralegals to help prepare evidence and fewer prosecutors to take cases to trial.
Our misdemeanor prosecutors are handling hundreds of cases each, prosecuting drunk drivers, sexual batterers, people who illegally carry loaded guns on our streets, and we’re doing it with very little help. Our felony units are no better off. We’re prosecuting robberies, assaults, drug trafficking, child abuse, and murder. And we are doing this with little access to our over-worked secretarial staff and virtually no paralegal support.
But these conditions have not changed our commitment to fighting crime. Despite severe cuts to our ability to prosecute cases, our felony convictions are up 20 percent. Why? Because District Attorney Harris and the people who serve as prosecutors will not compromise public safety. We come in early and we stay late. We work under nearly impossible conditions because that is what this economic crisis has required of every city department.
Every day, in the DA’s office, we work for people who’ve been forgotten—people who are scared of letting their kids out to play in front of their own homes, people being terrorized by drug dealers and gangs, people who have been beaten and robbed by people who are stronger than them. We do it because we won’t tell victims that due to a budget fight, we can’t find the resources to prosecute their assailants.
We do it because we believe that being progressive means standing up for the voiceless, defending the weak against the strong and those without power from those who have it. That’s what we do every day. And, by and large, the victims are not from Pacific Heights. It’s folks from Bayview, where I grew up, and it’s folks from Excelsior, Visitacion Valley, Potrero Hill, Laguna and Eddy Streets. It’s victims of domestic violence. It’s people who don’t speak English and who choke down their fear and hold on tight to their faith to come to the DA’s office, hoping against hope that someone will help make pain, abuse and fear stop. That’s what we do. And that’s truly progressive.
So, let’s drop the game of deciding who is progressive based on whether you think the District Attorney or the Public Defender should get full funding. The last thing we want to see is our friends in the Public Defender’s office go through what we’ve gone through. They’re dedicated lawyers who do a difficult, often thankless job.
I hope the city finds a way to preserve all our important institutions. But we won’t let Mr. Adachi and his surrogates get there by trashing our work and those who support it. They are not the final arbiters of what’s progressive. The verdict on that is rendered every day in every city courtroom, where we all work to eke out a little justice for people, one case at a time.
The Hunger Site
July 19, 2009 at 12:12 am
Greg,
Thanks for the questions and comments you pose, which are helpful in advancing our dialog.
You ask:
“how do you explain a rate of incarceration 7x higher, when our violent crime rate is maybe only twice as high?â€
We both agree that a large number of people in the U.S. have been incarcerated for using minor drugs and that the laws on the subject should be changed.
The issue that remains between us is that of violent crime, not the incarceration rate for soft drug use.
The per capita murder rate in the United States is about six times that of Japan’s.
You say:
“47.5% of all the drug arrests in our country in 2007 were for marijuana offenses.â€
You’re kicking a dead horse here. We agree, as I said, that use of marijuana should not be criminalized. The issue that remains between us is that of violent crime.
You say:
“Black males have a 32% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives. How can you find nothing wrong with this?â€
If they are in prison because of smoking pot, that’s wrong. We agree.
But no one should be given a pass for committing violent crimes because of his or her skin color. That makes no sense at all.
You say:
“I can only conclude that there is something profoundly wrong with the system.â€
That may be. However, people who commit violent crimes should not be excused from the consequences of their because there are problems with the system.
Most killings of black males, by the way, are done by other black males. Do you believe that the families of the victims would not want justice because the killers are black?
You ask:
“If 90% or 100% of black males wound up in prison at some point, would you STILL make excuses for the criminal injustice system?â€
How do you reach this conclusion?
You say:
“none of this even begins to scratch the surface of the untold numbers of people who are outright innocent of anything, or the people in jail for other victimless crimes.â€
The issue between us is one of violent crime. Not victimless crimes. Not smoking pot or using other soft drugs.
You say:
“I’ve already torn that argument to shreds by showing that our incarceration rate is completely out of proportion to the crime rate, relative to other nations.â€
Not with Japan’s, for example, as I have already pointed out above.
You say:
“a competent defense involves more than having a qualified attorney who means well. It involves an attorney on equal footing with the prosecutor in terms of case load…â€
We’ve run around this bush before. Proving a crime takes more effort and time than raising a reasonable doubt.
You say:
“We already have the #1 highest paid cops in the whole United States. That hasn’t helped them solve murders.â€
We agree that effective management is also required, which has been lacking in the SFPD in recent years.
You say:
“approximately the same number of people control 95 percent of the world’s economy as are in solitary confinement in the United States.â€
We should work to redistribute wealth, break up the big corporations, and support good wages and working conditions for workers.
We should also work to hold people who commit violent crimes (most of whom are men) accountable for their behavior.
You say:
“This is why NO amount of money thrown at the prosecutors and cops is EVER going to bring to justice the real murderers and thieves.â€
We have to face up to the fact that most violent crimes are committed by men. That is, we have to acknowledge the reality of patriarchy and challenge it.
The operative word here is “patriarchy.†Check it out.
You say:
“you don’t get it.â€
I’m doing the best I can with the brains that nature gave me.
You say:
“But you’re also old, you’re white … you’re comfortable that you won’t ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time, ground up in the machine.â€
Did you ever hear of the phrase “ad hominem argument�
An ad hominem argument occurs when one of the debaters tries to turn the other person into the topic of the debate.
Ad hominem arguments, once begun, encourage both sides to go tit for tat in making personal attacks on each other. The topic gets lost in the process.
So I’m not going to go down the ad hominem road with you.
To the contrary, I have nothing whatever to say against you personally. I acknowledge that you are a fine person. I accept that your goal is to attain the truth.
However, we disagree on the issues at hand.
July 18, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Arthur,
I love the way you feel you have the right to bully me into answering your questions, when you steadfastly ignore mine.
Not only did you not answer the questions I posed, but instead of addressing the points I made, you choose to restate my case as a false straw man argument, and respond to that.
What, are the facts that I’m bringing up so threatening to your worldview that you just block them out?
Take this for instance:
“By your own admission, the “the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S.â€
It makes no sense at all to conclude, as you do, that criminals should not be incarcerated in the U.S. because they are so many of them, compared to Canada and elsewhere.”
I concluded no such thing. I never said that criminals shouldn’t be incarcerated. But how do you explain a rate of incarceration 7x higher, when our violent crime rate is maybe only twice as high?
You obviously don’t want to confront that thorny question, but I’ll tell you why. It’s because most of the people we incarcerate are not violent AT ALL. That’s another fact that you choose to ignore.
Perhaps this a good time to post a link to the excellent diary I read on Daily Kos today:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/18/11927/2667
Among the facts the diarist mentions that you should consider are:
“-47.5% of all the drug arrests in our country in 2007 were for marijuana offenses.
This is who is clogging up your prisons, not violent offenders.
-Nearly 60% of the people in state prisons serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence or of any significant selling activity.
That means about one quarter to a third of the people in prison are completely non-violent drug offenders. This is who the Public Defender defends.
-Black males have a 32% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives.
How can you find nothing wrong with this? How can you say that the population is so “bad” that 1/3 of them get locked up at some point. Yes, certainly, some people are criminals who deserve to be locked up, but when I see a statistic like this, I can only conclude that there is something profoundly wrong with the system. You, on the other hand, continue to make excuses for the system. If 90% or 100% of black males wound up in prison at some point, would you STILL make excuses for the criminal injustice system? Would you still say, “Oh well, I guess those black males are just all prone to crime?”
-African Americans make up – 12 % of the population – 14% of monthly drug users – 37% of those arrested on drug charges – 59% of those convicted on drug charges – 74% of drug offenders sentenced to prison.”
Same “crimes.” Very different outcomes. Why?
Note also that none of this even begins to scratch the surface of the untold numbers of people who are outright innocent of anything, or the people in jail for other victimless crimes.
As for your own questions…
“When it comes to the perpetrators of violent crime, who will you let off the hook? The guy who raped your sister? The guy who broke into your car? The guy who abducted and tortured your young niece?”
None of them. And no civilized country in the world “lets them off the hook” either. And yet no civilized country in the world has nowhere near the incarceration rate that we do. Why? And don’t say it’s because Americans commit more crimes. I’ve already torn that argument to shreds by showing that our incarceration rate is completely out of proportion to the crime rate, relative to other nations.
“(1) How many indigent San Franciscans have lacked a competent legal defense?”
Competent public defender, or competent legal defense? If the former, I’d say very few, because Adachi has a decent crew doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. But a competent defense involves more than having a qualified attorney who means well. It involves an attorney on equal footing with the prosecutor in terms of case load, otherwise they simply can’t give their cases justice. And since PDs have much higher caseloads than DAs per attorney, the answer to your question is “all of them.”
(2) How many crimes are committed in SF for which no one is ever apprehended or tried?
Some. Who knows. But this isn’t a problem to be solved by throwing even ore money at cops and jails and prosecutors.
We already have the #1 highest paid cops in the whole United States. That hasn’t helped them solve murders.
OTOH, giving more money to the Public Defender WILL help indigent defenders, most of them completely nonviolent, many of them innocent, get a proper defense.
And here’s another of many excellent points from the Daily Kos diary that I want to highlight:
“I’ve heard it said that approximately the same number of people control 95 percent of the world’s economy as are in solitary confinement in the United States. There can be little doubt as to which group has killed the greatest number of people. The same would hold true for which group has stolen the most, especially if we include resources, and which group has most damaged the planet. It is entirely possible that we have the wrong population in solitary. But, of course, so long as those in power decide who goes to prison, those in power will not go to prison.”
This is why NO amount of money thrown at the prosecutors and cops is EVER going to bring to justice the real murderers and thieves.
Arthur, I said that you don’t get it. But I think the points I’m making are simple enough that it’s not an issue of intelligence. I don’t think you WANT to get it. Because to “get it,” to confront the fact that we’re living in a police state, would be extremely threatening to your world view. You’re male, yes, and not particularly wealthy, which defnitely puts you at higher risk for being victimized by the state. But you’re also old, you’re white, you’re comfortable, and you dress like the establishment and you speak proper English. In short, you’re comfortable that you won’t ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time, ground up in the machine. You may be right, Arthur. But that’s a selfish view, devoid of empathy.
And, who knows… you just might yet turn out to be wrong.
July 17, 2009 at 8:04 pm
The article below shows what can happen when a violent male who should be incarcerated, isn’t.
* * * * *
SAN FRANCISCO — Eleven days before James Raphael Mitchell allegedly beat his ex-girlfriend to death, San Francisco probation officials asked a judge to send him to jail for a month for skipping a court hearing in a domestic violence case involving the woman.
Instead, Superior Court Judge Mary Morgan sentenced Mitchell to two days, court records show – and stayed the sentence.
On Sunday, police say, Mitchell – whose former girlfriend Danielle Keller, 29, had obtained a permanent restraining order in Marin County against him and had custody of the couple’s year-old daughter – drove to her Novato home and allegedly beat her to death with a baseball bat.
“I was aware he was supposed to be going to jail, and I am not aware of why he didn’t,” said Claudia Stevens, Keller’s mother. “That is why Danielle is dead today.”
[From SF Chronicle, 7/17/9]
July 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Greg,
Thanks for your follow-up note above.
By your own admission, the “the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S.”
It makes no sense at all to conclude, as you do, that criminals should not be incarcerated in the U.S. because they are so many of them, compared to Canada and elsewhere.
When it comes to the perpetrators of violent crime, who will you let off the hook? The guy who raped your sister? The guy who broke into your car? The guy who abducted and tortured your young niece?
Getting back to SF politics, you still haven’t answered the following three questions:
(1) How many indigent San Franciscans have lacked a competent legal defense?
(2) How many crimes are committed in SF for which no one is ever apprehended or tried?
(3) Is there any disparity between the above two numbers?
I look forward to your answers.
Thanks again for an engaging debate.
July 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm
You’re just not getting it, are you? 5% of the adult male population is currently behind bars, in prison, or on parole… and you say that it’s not a problem with the police state, but with the people they lock up.
Setting aside your typical tirade against men, the point is that the US is completely outside the norms of civilized society. Here’s what Wikipedia says about the crime rate in Canada, for example:
“Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States’ rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada.”
So whether the crime rate is 1.65 higher, 2x as high, 3x as high, or actually lower than ours, the fact still remains that we incarcerate 7 TIMES as many people per capita! 7 TIMES! What, may I ask, justifies this in your mind? By *definition*, it’s NOT the relative propensity of Americans to commit crime!
And this is TYPICAL -all of the world’s democracies, whether their crime rates are lower or HIGHER (and some are higher, believe it or not!), have incarceration rates SEVERAL TIMES smaller than our own.
So I want to ask you, where does your deference to authority end? What proportion of society does the state have to lock up, before you finally acknowledge that maybe, just maybe… the problem lies with the STATE, and not the human beings they imprison? 10%? 20%? 50%? Just how bad does it have to get?
Or will you always acquiesce to authority until they come for YOU, and YOU get ground up in that machine? Is that what it will take to get through to people like you?
July 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughtful post above. Below are some responses.
You say:
“Your answer to me basically boils down to saying that the American people are more violent and crime-prone than people in other countries.â€
Not quite. Rather this:
The overall rate for violent crimes is higher for American men than for men in most developed countries.
In all societies for which we have records, most violent crimes are committed by men.
The U.S., compared to most other advanced countries, has an exceptionally high rate of such crimes.
You say:
“If you compare it [incarceration rate] to other developed democracies, we have an incarceration rate 5-15 times higher than others. That includes Canada, a nation of somewhat similar demographics and culture.â€
Canada has far fewer violent crimes per capita than the U.S.
You say:
“Fully 5% of the American adult male population alive today is currently behind bars, on probation or parole.â€
This statistic proves that the U.S. has a problem with its male population.
Stop making excuses for criminal male behavior.
You say:
“Furthermore, since some 70% of our prison population is non-white, the numbers are even more horrifying when you consider the rate of non-white incarceration in America.â€
Non-white males are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of crimes in the U.S.
They should not be given a pass for their crimes because they are males or non-white, or both.
You say:
“in civilized countries, they don’t lock people up for long periods of time for minor offenses. … and they treat drug abuse primarily as a medical issue instead of fighting this stupid drug war.â€
We agree that marijuana and soft drugs should be legalized and that the so-called “war on drugs†was stupid.
But even so, the rate for violent crimes among American males, especially non-white American males, is much higher than the rate for violent crimes in most advanced countries.
These are facts of life.
You say:
“What is uncivilized about this country is its government – a government that has created a complex of prosecutors, cops, courts …â€
The prosecutors, cops, and courts are necessary because of the high rate of rapes, murders, burglaries, and assaults, compared to other advanced countries.
It makes no sense to say that such crimes should not be prosecuted.
You say:
“That, incidentally, is why we have a propaganda machine working overtime to convince us to be afraid of street crime even though the level of street crime is no worse now than it was in the early 60s.â€
This is progress?
The rates of violent crime are extraordinarily high in certain neighborhoods of some cities, such as Bay View-Hunters Point and the Fillmore in SF.
This is an outrageous situation that must be brought under control.
You say:
“And standing between the people and that complex is the Public Defender -amounting to a few crumbs thrown out for the sake of appearances, a joke in most jurisdictions.â€
How many indigent defendants in SF have gone without competent legal defense?
You say:
“What we need is a complete overhaul of the system.â€
Agreed. We have to face up to the fact that men are out of control in general in the human race, and that they pose a special problem in regard to violent crimes in the U.S.
July 15, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Arthur,
Your answer to me basically boils down to saying that the American people are more violent and crime-prone than people in other countries. Nice try, but that just doesn’t cut it.
I’ll be the first to admit that we’re not the most peace-loving country on earth, but even a cursory look at statistics leads to the inevitable conclusion that your explanation is woefully inadequate.
Let me put it into perspective. We have the absolute #1 highest incarceration rate in the whole world -that includes countries with low crime rates and high crime rates (some higher than even our own), more diverse and less diverse countries, democracies and dictatorships. If you compare it to other developed democracies, we have an incarceration rate 5-15 times higher than others. That includes Canada, a nation of somewhat similar demographics and culture.
How high is our incarceration rate? A full 1% of the adult American population is currently behind bars, or about 2% of the American adult male population. Fully 5% of the American adult male population alive today is currently behind bars, on probation or parole. And while I haven’t found statistics saying what percentage has gone through the prison system at some point, I would imagine it probably approaches 10%. We’ve grown so complacent that we think this is normal, but it’s not. In Canada, the incarceration rate is a mere 1/7 of what it is here.
Furthermore, since some 70% of our prison population is non-white, the numbers are even more horrifying when you consider the rate of non-white incarceration in America. I don’t want to belabor this point too much, because just the incarceration rates for white Americans would still be among the highest in the world. But just to put it into perspective, it was noted in the early 1990s, during the final days of the South African Apartheid regime, that an African American in the US was several times more likely to go to prison in America than in Apartheid South Africa!
My point in bringing this up is this: to say that a disparity so great between us and the rest of the world is entirely due to the nature of the American people, is simplistic, incredibly insulting to the American people, and just plain wrong.
And if it’s not because the American people are so awful, then why is it? Well, it’s the fact that in civilized countries, they don’t lock people up for long periods of time for minor offenses. In civilized countries they don’t make it impossible for people to resume their lives after being punished for a transgression. In civilized countries, they don’t have 3 strikes, and mandatory minimums, and they treat drug abuse primarily as a medical issue instead of fighting this stupid drug war.
So in a sense, you’re right when you say that America is not a civilized country. But what is uncivilized is not the American people per se. What is uncivilized about this country is its government – a government that has created a complex of prosecutors, cops, courts, prisons and guards more vast than any other in the world (possibly in history), a complex that holds budgets and governments by the throat, and needs to be fed with an ever-increasing supply of fresh meat in order to thrive.
That, incidentally, is why we have a propaganda machine working overtime to convince us to be afraid of street crime even though the level of street crime is no worse now than it was in the early 60s. What’s truly criminal, is a society that imprisons 2.5% of its adult population.
And standing between the people and that complex is the Public Defender -amounting to a few crumbs thrown out for the sake of appearances, a joke in most jurisdictions. Seen in that context, Arthur, what we need is not to throw a few more crumbs at the only official entity that the criminal injustice complex tolerates to protect society from its clutches. What we need is a complete overhaul of the system. But I’m not holding my breath for that, and San Francisco’s Jeff Adachi makes enough of an effort to make the system (in this town at least) look almost… legitimate? So considering that for many people, his office is the only thing that stands between them and the criminal injustice complex that threatens to grind them up and discard them like so much human garbage, I’m all for giving him more funds, for the sake of the lives of indigent people, and the dignity of the rest of us.
July 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Thanks to Greg and Marc for raising interesting points in their posts above. Here are some replies –
Greg says:
“why does the US have the #1 highest incarceration rate in the whole world?â€
The U.S. is not a civilized country, or at least not a highly civilized country. The boast that the U.S. is highly civilized is one of the great superstitions of modernity.
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate because the U.S. has a huge class of repeat offenders for every kind of crime, one of the largest such classes in the world.
American men, in particular, are responsible for the great majority of violent crimes in the U.S.
American men, on the whole, are among the most violent human beings in the world.
The problem is a historical one. The U.S., for most of its history, was a Wild-West, frontier society.
For 150 years or so, the frontier moved steadily westward from the original colonies to the West Coast.
During that long stretch of time, the nation placed a high value on male aggression and violence. This behavior was useful in killing off the Indians, expelling European interlopers, and destroying forests in order to convert them into farm lands.
Europe, by contrast, completed this aggressive, frontier phase of its history by around 1200 A.D. This date marks the beginning of modern European institutions.
Given enough time, the U.S. will eventually become civilized, like Europe. But until then, many of the men in the U.S. still embody the atavistic attitudes, fantasies, and behavior that befit a lawless frontier society.
Violent American males need to be kept under control. We can’t pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. Unless controlled, violent American males will continue to rob, bludgeon, torture, rape, and kill in large numbers.
For a more detailed examination of this historical phenomenon, see the sections dealing with “the great devastation†in the book “Critique of Patriarchal Reason.â€
Marc says:
“one factor, the SFPD, has remained constant in this equation and another factor, the DA, has changed, yet the problem persists.â€
Both the SFPD and the DA’s office have lacked effective leadership. We haven’t had a first-class DA in SF in forty years.
Police chiefs have fared a bit better, overall. However, Chief Heather Fong has been ineffective, especially in the last two years.
Unfortunately, the problems with the SFPD and the DA reflect a larger one: the mediocrity, in general, of the city’s governing class.
The last mayor who was an effective administrator was Dianne Feinstein. Unfortunately, however, her politics were backward-looking.
The board of supes was at its best in the late 1970s and early 80s, during the first bout of district elections.
Since then, however, the board – both in its at-large form and under district elections – has mostly been like an ongoing Monty Python skit.
The city is not doing well in dealing with crime and grime because it suffers from sodden leadership across the political spectrum.
Giving more money to the Public Defender will not solve any of these problems. In fact, doing so will likely only aggravate things.
We need to face up to the fact that we have miserable political leadership in this town, in both wings of City Hall, and in all the political sects. Pretending otherwise will never solve anything.
July 15, 2009 at 6:24 am
Arthur, Have you checked the ID cards of drug dealers in my neighborhood, or are you just buying the like of the lazy SFPD? The SFPD used to whine that Hallinan did not secure convictions, now they whine that Harris is not securing convictions. I’d argue that one factor, the SFPD, has remained constant in this equation and another factor, the DA, has changed, yet the problem persists. This is a preliminary indication that the problem is structural, with the SFPD, rather than the DA.
I’m not one to give “loss leader” raises to a department that has demonstrated that it refuses to engage on matters important to San Franciscans while engaging in matters that are not priorities or conflict with the priorities of San Francisco residents, citizens, voters and taxpayers.
How codependent can we get other than rewarding the lazy before they produce results?
Arthur is introducing a novel theory here, that the inclusion of criminal protections against the awesome power of the state somehow means the US criminal legal system favor defendants. This flies in the face of 225 years of history and experience.
-marc
July 14, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“The U.S. has one of the most defendant-friendly criminal systems in the world”
Really Arthur? Then why does the US have the #1 highest incarceration rate in the whole world? Did you know that on a per capita basis, we hold a higher percentage of our citizenry in prison than any other country in the world -by far, including the worst dictatorships. It’s such a staggering fact to comprehend, that it’s hard to believe. And yet it’s true.
First you have to wrap your brain around that statistic, and when you do, you can’t escape the realization that something is truly wrong and way out of balance in our criminal injustice system. Throwing more money at the police and DA so that even more of our people are locked up, is precisely the wrong way to go.
July 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Marc,
The U.S. has one of the most defendant-friendly criminal systems in the world, and San Francisco is one of the most defendant-friendly cities in the U.S.
If you doubt it, just ask the drug dealers who come over from Oakland, or Mexico, and sell down the street from where you live.
Correcting this imbalance will require increases in funding for the police and the D.A., and better management of both.
This imbalance will not be corrected by giving more money to the public defender’s office.
July 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
““to say that the US legal system is structurally weighted towards the prosecution is an understatement.â€
Wrong. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, contrary to the practices in some other countries. Also, reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal. Again, there are elaborate procedures for appeals. Finally, the judiciary is a separate branch of government.”
These protections are in place because the founders realized that the power of the state was so awesome in comparison to what most defendants are able to muster. They were also expanded over time to give defendants a right to counsel.
Mitigating state power does not eliminate the decisive advantage that the government has in court in the minds of the finders of fact and law when compared to a criminal defendant. In this sense, you resemble McCain politically.
““many defense attorneys urge to plea rather than take chances in a criminal courtroomâ€
A very large percentage of people accused of crimes are in fact guilty. They hope to cop a plea in order to avoid sterner punishments.”
How do you know this, or do you assume that they wouldn’t be charged unless they were guilty?
““he [John McCain] would throw more good money away in new tax cuts as you would throw more good money at the SFPD.â€
Money for the SFPD, though necessary, is not enough. Good management also is required.
It’s been missing under Chief Fong. Let’s see what the new chief brings”
Here we also agree. My concerns are about loss-leader raises for rank and file cops who just don’t do their job as well as dysfunction at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t have time right now to work through the issues the SFPD rank and file face with racism and sexism that were evident during the gold ole boy network’s insubordination against Fong.
-marc
July 14, 2009 at 10:00 am
Marc, some responses to your last post –
You say:
“to say that the US legal system is structurally weighted towards the prosecution is an understatement.â€
Wrong. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, contrary to the practices in some other countries. Also, reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal. Again, there are elaborate procedures for appeals. Finally, the judiciary is a separate branch of government.
You say:
“many defense attorneys urge to plea rather than take chances in a criminal courtroomâ€
A very large percentage of people accused of crimes are in fact guilty. They hope to cop a plea in order to avoid sterner punishments.
You say:
“the only place where indigent defendants will find competent, engaged counsel is the public defense bar.â€
We agree on this point.
You say:
“he [John McCain] would throw more good money away in new tax cuts as you would throw more good money at the SFPD.â€
Money for the SFPD, though necessary, is not enough. Good management also is required.
It’s been missing under Chief Fong. Let’s see what the new chief brings.
July 13, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Arthur, to say that the US legal system is structurally weighted towards the prosecution is an understatement. The founders got this, the Supreme Court has followed up, both taking unprecedented steps to check the awesome power of the state. What’s holding you up?
Convictions are statistically so likely that many defense attorneys urge to plea rather than take chances in a criminal courtroom run by a judge who was put on the bench politically and by prosecutors who are also creatures of politics, most all of whom must pay homage to the stoked altar of irrational fear of crime.
Since most all crimes prosecuted in SF require PD services, that demonstrates to me that the only place where indigent defendants will find competent, engaged counsel is the public defense bar. Absent a vigorous PD operation, most defendants will be made to plea by substandard counsel.
Arthur, I did not state that you are like John McCain not because you share his politics, I stated that you remind me of him because he would throw more good money away in new tax cuts as you would throw more good money at the SFPD.
-marc
July 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Enjoying the back and forth here, but think that the tension between the two departments calls for some independent analysis that would answer these questions:
1) How many misdemeanors does the DA prosecute every year?
2) How many felonies?
3) How many convictions?
4) How many cases are dismissed?
5) And, how many defendants are represented by the PD annually?
These are just some of the possible questions that should be asked — asked in the interests of saving money as well as serving justice.
About ten years ago I served on a jury in a case that we, the jurors, ultimately decided should never have been brought to trial. A Japanese woman had been accused of assault and battery of a police officer — and another charge that I no longer recall. The case involved a group of people who had been at a bar celebrating a birthday. The celebrants, who had been in a private room, claimed that they had bought one pitcher of beer and some snack food, but when it was time to close the establishment for the night, the waitress brought the group a bill for about $400. When they refused to pay, an off-duty police officer who frequented the bar called in for back up. A number of on-duty police officers apparently came, got the credit card of one of the patrons, and arrested a number of people — including the defendant in our case.
I’ll admit that on the first day of testimony, from the off-duty police officer who had called for back up, that I was ready to convict. But by the second day, to a person, we decided that the woman had been caught up in a shakedown gone awry.
So how did that case ever end up getting tried? I attempted to ask Terrence Hallinan that question on a couple of occasions before he lost his race for reelection, but I never got a satisfactory answer.
I’m sure there are other examples of cases that never should be tried. In the documentary, “Presumed Guilty,” for example, there is the case of the woman who is arrested and put on trial for carrying a concealed weapon to the Hall of Justice — when she had been instructed to do so if she had found this weapon which her domestic partner had threatened to use against her.
July 13, 2009 at 12:42 pm
It is unfortunate the “parity” argument ever surfaced. If memory serves it was first mentioned at the Budget & Finance committee on July 1.
True parity would necessitate adding millions of dollars to the PD budget. Instead the PD is asking for $975,000.
In the interest of public safety voters should want their DA’s office properly staffed, and to guarantee defendants a right from the Bill of Rights–the right to a fair trial– a properly funded PD’s office. There is no need to pit one agency against the other.
There is also no reason to echo reactionaries who want to “privatize” public services. Accountability is possible when these elected officials manage the caseload of their respective offices.
The tragedy here is that Mayor Newsom could have taken an active, as opposed to purely decorative, role in the budget process. For reasons that have been detailed in FCJ and elsewhere that is something he chose not to do. The Board of Supervisors is bracing for an “add back Donner Party” where worthy programs and services are in a death struggle against each another to survive.
If Newsom succeeds in his campaign for Governor, his handling of this City budget cannot make anyone sanguine about the future of California finances.
July 13, 2009 at 12:35 pm
marc,
I note that you say above:
“cases which are brought to trial are the ones most likely to win and that have not been pleaded outâ€
Rather, cases that are brought to trial are the ones for which the D.A. believes she has the best evidence.
Even so, it’s always harder to win an argument than raise a doubt. The posts in this thread are examples.
If the defensive attorney raises a reasonable doubt, the defendant is free.
You also say:
“You remind me of John McCain hereâ€
That’s right. Anybody who disagrees with any of your dogmas is a right-winger.
This is not an intelligent way to conduct a discussion.
July 13, 2009 at 6:43 am
“(2) Winning a conviction is more difficult than winning an acquittal. ”
This is not true, all things being equal, as cases which are brought to trial are the ones most likely to win and that have not been pleaded out.
“(3) Crime, even though down this year, is still out of control in SF. Most crimes are never reported or prosecuted because of the woeful underfunding of law enforcement mechanisms.”
You remind me of John McCain here, who is whining that all we need for economic stimulus is tax cuts even though 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts and unemployment keeps rising.
We ARE increasing the SFPD budget, and still, woe is ye.
The SFPD is currently receiving a 25% increase in pay, leading to a $500m department. Has there been an increase in successful violent criminal prosecutions corresponding increase in SFPD pay?
Privatizing prosecutorial authority so that we can pay more to outsource public function than we’d pay for it to be done in house? Do you think we property owners are just made of money to be used by social engineers like yourself in your grandiose experiments?
-marc
July 13, 2009 at 12:47 am
The pros and cons discussed in these articles were analyzed by those requesting and planning the budget. FCJ commentators on both sides provide sound arguments, although not likely to sway each other’s opinion at this stage of the game. The fact that the DA and PD/general public have bargaining power disparities (i.e., the DA can charge an individual with anything and that individual suffers the taint of the charge, guilty or not; think wrongly accused Richard Jewell of Atlanta Olympic bombing fame) has not even been explored here.
Really, the question to address ASAP is why did Supervisor Avalos choose to collaborate with the unknown Chiu and the all too well known unreliable Newsom on a deal that struck a blow to both Avalos allies and trustworthy Daly and Adachi while providing no budget bargaining tools for the Board such as those suggested by Mirkarimi?
July 12, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Three inequities are at work here:
(1) The Public Defender can outsource cases if the load becomes too high, and then charge the city for the same, while the District Attorney cannot.
This inequity should be changed. Protecting the general public from crime is as important as protecting the rights of indigent defendants in the courtroom.
The law should provide that the D.A. may outsource individual cases in the same manner as the P.D., and then charge the city.
(2) Winning a conviction is more difficult than winning an acquittal.
A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and a reasonable doubt is sufficient groups to acquit. All a defense attorney in a case need do is establish a reasonable doubt, and the defendant walks.
However, the D.A. has to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubts in order to convict. This effort takes more time, energy, and money than merely establishing a reasonable doubt. The D.A.’s budget should, accordingly, be larger on a case-by-case basis.
(3) Crime, even though down this year, is still out of control in SF. Most crimes are never reported or prosecuted because of the woeful underfunding of law enforcement mechanisms.
However, all indigent defendants get competent representation. As noted, the P.D. can outsource if need be if a deficiency arises.
The budgets of the police and the D.A. need to raised, accordingly, to provide for better control of crime in general.
In sum:
The D.A. should be able to outsource in the same manner as the P.D., larger budgets should be given, case by case, to the D.A. in individual prosecutions, and the aggregate budgets of the police and the D.A. should be increased.
July 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Arthur,
I think you’re (deliberately) misrepresenting my argument, the whole crux of which was that I think the PD and the DA should be on equal footing in the courtroom.
That does not necessarily mean an equal dollar amount for each office, and you know I never argued for that.
You made the argument that the DA’s budget should be higher because the DA prosecutes all criminals, while the PD only defends the indigent. I answered that if it was found that the average deputy DA’s caseload was higher than the corresponding figures at the PD, then I’d agree it would make sense to lower the PD’s budget or raise the DAs. However, I challenged you on whether you’d be willing to do the opposite, if the opposite were in fact found to be true.
You never answered me, because I suspect that you know Marc is probably correct that most of who the people the DA prosecutes are indigent, that caseloads in the PD’s office are extraoridnarily high compared to the DA, and as a result, defendants (who are supposed to be presumed innocent) are at a distinct disadvantage when they go into the courtroom. I think you know, and you don’t care. At least be honest about it.
July 12, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I think that we know that $300K in the hands of the PD will be spent directly to fulfill a constitutional mandate, while $300 in the hands of the SFPD or DA might be effective in investigating or prosecuting a crime.
And we’ve seen what happens when society at large loses track of what the constitution means. And when that fundamental underpinning is put aside for political expedience sake, short-term gains portend significant negative consequences down the road for our shared goals.
The truth is that San Francisco politicians, always eyeing the next level up on the greased pole, are willing to throw the City overboard with clear conscience. This is most glaringly evident with the SFPD, the front-end to prosecution,where there are no civilian controls to speak of in place over the SFPD enforcement priorities. Suburban cops calling their own daily work plan, nice work if you can get it, but it makes us no safer.
-marc
July 12, 2009 at 4:29 pm
This thread comes down to one’s priorities.
Some believe that indigent defendants are in danger of losing a competent defense because too little money in the budget will go to the Public Defender, and too much to the District Attorney. Their priority is to defend indigent defendants.
I myself, however, have a different priority.
I see many crimes, both petty and serious, committed in my neighborhood where no one is ever arrested, charged, tried, or convicted.
In fact, the impression I have (borne out by statistics) is that if you commit a crime in SF, the chances are pretty good that you will never be held accountable in any way.
In San Francisco today, we have a systematic breakdown in law enforcement that has existed for so long that it is now accepted as a norm of life.
Some neighborhoods are like Wild West towns of 150 years ago. This is a totally outrageous situation!
Part of the problem is that greater protections now exist here for people accused of crimes than for the victims of crimes. This imbalance harms both individuals and entire neighborhoods, especially at-risk and poor neighborhoods.
My priority is to restore some balance to this sodden picture. I want to see more resources go to protecting decent, law-abiding citizens from unsanitary public conditions, abuse, robberies, assaults, rapes, and murders.
Indigent defendants already have adequate protections.
Eventually, we will have to stop acting like a frontier town and join civilized society.
This is a progressive quest, if there ever was one.
July 12, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Arthur, in your mind, I’m sure that progressives are all one unified vanguard, so that when Greg speaks, he binds me as well. I think what Greg was positing was his impressions of the sentiment of the electorate. That and $2.50 will buy you a cup of Blue Bottle.
The DA need not charge all all cases that come before her, this is what is known as “prosecutorial discretion,” and is generally available to the wealthy, connected and graduates of the Catholic prep schools. It is the nature of her operation that she should probably be investigating more cases than she charges, because some cases end up as dead ends.
Most cases which are brought to the attention of the DA must pass through the filter of the SFPD first. And her office can also triage the cases which the SFPD brings to her attention. The first filter should ensure that the crimes least likely to be of import to San Franciscans are the ones brought forward, and the latter filter would only go for those crimes most likely to secure a conviction.
The salaries of the PD are currently in the midst of a 25% increase between 2008 and 2012. While the cops are giving average people shit for minor technical infractions, the climate of impunity is such that just last week a motorist hit a cyclist and his young son one block from the Mission Police station, breaking the father’s back before speeding off. The SFPD has a partial plate number, vanity and make and color of the vehicle, but have yet to have identified and apprehended the perp.
Aside from this current depression budget, has the District Attorney sought an increase in her budget from the Mayor and Board of Supervisors? The SFPD sure has, for what its not worth.
Reeling the latest in Arthur’s serial digressions back to the topic at hand, the city robs Jeff to pay Kamala when under the pretense of saving money puts the City on the hook for outsourcing.
-marc
July 12, 2009 at 3:32 pm
A “progressive” District Attorney quickly puts criminals back on the street”
http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2009/07/sfda-tough-on-crime.html
July 12, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Apparently marc has not read Greg’s posts.
“I believe that if the electorate of this particular city -unlike some others -could decide, they’d opt to equalize funding between the PD and the DA …”
– Greg Kamin
“Nobody is saying that the PD and DA budget should be the same dollar amount.”
– marc
In any case, something has been overlooked here. If the Public Defender does not have enough money in his budget to defend all indigent defendants, he is allowed to outsource the cases to private attorneys, who then bill the city for the extra charges.
No indigent defendant ever goes without competent representation in SF, regardless of what the budget is for the Public Defender.
However, he District Attorney does not have this option. She has to prosecute all the cases that come to her, involving both indigents and others, within her budget. There’s no room for expansion.
The task of battling crime in SF is an uphill one. The great majority of crimes never even make it to the prosecution phase. City law enforcement officials lack the resources to arrest and prosecute most cases.
One example:
In 2006 in San Francisco, there were more than 15,000 car break-ins – an average of 41 per day. This huge number has overwhelmed the ability of law enforcement to deal with them.
Low enforcement and prosecution rates are also the case with street robberies, home break-ins, personal assaults, and many other crimes.
Even with the dip in the crime rate that has recently appeared here during the Great Recession, law enforcement officials are still greatly outgunned.
To reach parity with the criminals, we need big increases in the budgets of the police and the District Attorney.
July 12, 2009 at 9:35 am
Nobody is saying that the PD and DA budget should be the same dollar amount. Why would Arthur Evans promote that sleight of hand?
85-90% of the defendants facing prosecution by SF DA’s are indigent. Thus, any budgetary adjustments must reflect that ratio rather than recklessly increasing the DA’s budget relative to the PD’s budget and guaranteeing an increased drain on the general fund in the out months.
Your rhetoric demanding SFPD and DA prosecution of crimes of poverty is now revealed as vacuous gimmickry. Voters just shot down Schwarzenegger’s budgetary gimmickry as they shot down the CJC in SF. In a climate of scarce resources, we must share the pain in a way that anticipates and prevents rather than invites more pain.
-marc
July 12, 2009 at 9:13 am
Re marc’s statement:
“. . . most crimes are committed by folks who can’t afford an attorney,”
Disagree, about that, though I agree with most everything else you’ve said.
E.g., all the institutions, including Lennar and its mortgage lending subsidiary, UAMC Mortgage, engaged in widespread mortgage swindling, and, many other instiituions then profited on fraudulently obtained funds passed to them as securitized mortgages. They are conceivably subject to criminal prosecution under the RICO racketeering laws, if not others, but few have been charged, though these crimes sent waves of pain all over the world.
July 12, 2009 at 8:24 am
No matter how many cases the Public Defender defends, the District Attorney will always have to handle more cases.
That’s because the District Attorney prosecutes cases involving both indigent and non-indigent defendants. The Public Defender, however, defends only the indigent.
So the District Attorney’s budget will always have to be more than the the Public Defender’s.
It’s called arithmetic.
July 12, 2009 at 7:27 am
There are constitutional requirements that any criminal defendant be availed of defense counsel while there are not constitutional requirements that crime be prosecuted.
When we “cut” the PD’s budget, we’re just kicking the can down the road because we’re going to have to pay more than we’re saving, appropriate supplemental funding later in the year, to provide representation to the indigent when the PD’s budget has run out.
Arthur Evans cannot have it both ways, riding his hobby horse against drunks druggies and public defecation and urination, urging prosecution and consequences, but avoiding consequences of his policy positions when he supports greater enforcement at the illusory cost of less representation.
-marc
July 11, 2009 at 10:48 pm
The CJC is a complete waste of money that unnecessarily duplicates resources. Try telling that to Gavin Newsom who is subsidizing his gubernatorial campaign with CJC tax dollars.
There’s also the issue of plea bargaining and juror pool.
Though I haven’t done the research, it would be interesting to know the ratio of DA cases that are plea-bargained compared to those that actually go to trial.
Cases that are successfully plea-bargained are resolved in lieu of trial, requiring a fraction of DA and PD resources. So why go to trial if the PD can get a a lesser sentence and the DA can get a conviction?
On the issue of juror pool, this is San Francisco. Getting a conviction here is more difficult than getting a conviction in Santa Clara or Orange counties, for example – at least in criminal cases. Mix this reality in with a DA running for higher office, and you can see why Harris is so preoccupied with conviction rates.
But let’s face reality. The biggest problem we face is recidivism due to a correctional system that is exceedingly more punitive than rehabilitative. Until this problem is solved (through investment in education and socialization), the revolving door of crime and social decline will continue.
On the issue of the $600,000 restoration, the DA’s budget is double that of the PD budget. Therefore, the restoration should have been split accordingly: $400 thousand should have been added back to the PD, $200,000 to the DA.
July 11, 2009 at 10:03 pm
How can any serious person argue that prosecuting crime in SF is not a huge task, requiring much money and resources?
Just imagine how much time and energy is required to prosecute one case of rape or murder. Forensic experts have to be assembled. Defense strategies have to be countered. Police witnesses have to be scheduled and prepared.
Not to mention that private defense attorneys usually strive to drag things out as long as possible. And then there are the endless appeals.
Look at how much was required to nail former supervisor Ed Jew, even though the evidence was clear to all from the start.
Private attorneys are likely to add more time-consuming complexities to a case than public defenders. Private attorneys have an economic incentive for doing so. The private attorneys get paid according to the actual hours they spend on a case. Public defenders get paid a standard monthly wage.
The D.A. has to answer the complexities added to cases by private attorneys. Otherwise, the prosecution can be lost.
So a small number of cases with private attorneys can cause the D.A. to spend as much time and effort in prosecutions as a larger number of cases represented by public defenders.
As noted before, the public defender defends only indigent defendants. It’s true that there are many such. But a large percentage of these are repeat offenders. Crime is an established norm in their lives.
They deserve competent representation in court. But their lengthy rap sheets, in many cases, further undermine the rational for equating the public defender’s budget with that of the D.A., who is already struggling to deal with cases that have private attorneys.
July 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Arthur,
“As it should be” would mean that the DA got funded to bring all legitimate prosecutions and the PD got funded to defend all indigents.
“What it is” is that the vast majority of crimes the DA charges involve those who cannot afford their own counsel.
This is due to a combination of factors, including that most folks can’t afford a criminal attorney, most crimes are committed by folks who can’t afford an attorney, and the historical focus of police who investigate crimes and prosecutors who bring cases has been to focus on enforcement against the poor.
The statement stands–since so many defendants cannot afford their own attorney, the extent to which the DA has more resources to charge than the PD has to defend means that the PD will have to outsource enforcement and that will cost the City more than the apparent savings.
It should not go without saying that Arthur has beaten a drum on how it is critical that the SFPD and the DA prosecute public defecation and urination, not to mention drug use and alcohol consumption. He has applauded Newsom’s “Community Justice Center,” which requires staffing by the District Attorney and Public Defender.
Perhaps we should just imprison those so charged in work camps until they can make enough money to pay for their own counsel?
-marc
July 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“the District Attorney’s budget is about twice the size as the budget of the Public Defender”
– marc
That’s as it should be.
The Public Defender defends only those who are indigent.
The D.A., on the other hand, prosecutes all crimes, regardless of whether the defendants are indigent or not.
July 11, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Native,
Actually, Chiu gave money to both Hallinan and Harris. Fascinating guy. His company (Grassroots) was busted in Hawaii (his partner, Tim Dick presiding) for bribing numerous members of their state legislature (google Hawaii Super Ferry and be amazed). Here, he gave money to everyone but me and you (and, maybe you ‘Native’ – what’s your name?). Chiu donated to both sides in that DA race and also to everyone from Avalos to Daly in the Prog camp. He’s strictly a pay to play guy and now he gives millions. From the taxpayers.
Frankly, the appeal of the lady compared to Willie’s other ‘ladies in waiting’ always escaped me. You read his autobiography? He accused her of using him as a stepping stone. Can you imagine Willie Brown accusing anyone of ‘using’ people?
Keep the thread going, Paul. I’m thinking of a piece on how to go skiing without leaving the City.
h.
July 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm
P.S. I’d rather neither Gavin Newsom nor Jerry Brown were running for California Governor, but not because they’re currently in office.
And that was Pedro Nava, 35th Assembly District, not Nave. My favorite, 20th District Assembly Member Alberto Torrico and 35th Assembly Member Pedro Nava, ending in “a,” are both in the crowded field running for AG, and there are so many others I don’t have their names in mind yet.
And with regard to the AG’s race, I’d like to hear what Kamala Harris has to say about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to suddenly dump 58,000 state prisoners out of California’s gulag with no plan for rehab or re-entry.
July 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“marc”‘s statement seems logical:
“. . . the workload of the Public Defender is linked to some extent to the prosecutions budget of the District Attorney. The more criminal cases charged, the more defendants requiring representation.”
Enhancing the budget of one, at the expense of the other, thus seems like pointed aggression towards criminal defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.
Unemployment and hard times also encourage violence and criminal behavior, which makes the mayor’s determination to cut social services in favor of law enforcement, and prosecution, seem, again, cruel and irresponsible.
As to whether or not Kamala Harris should be running for Attorney General while she’s still San Francisco D.A.: This could be said of every candidate in the very crowded Attorney General’s race, including 30th District Assembly Member Pedro Nave, and my own favorite, 20th District Assembly Member Alberto Torrico.
And, it could thus have been argued that Barack Obama shouldn’t have been running for president while serving as a U.S. Senator, and, that neither current Mayor Gavin Newsom nor current Attorney General Jerry Brown should be running for Governor.
July 11, 2009 at 8:06 am
What’s lost in this discussion is that the District Attorney’s budget is about twice the size as the budget of the Public Defender, so any cuts or restorations cannot be equitable between the two departments unless they reflect that disparity.
Further, the workload of the Public Defender is linked to some extent to the prosecutions budget of the District Attorney. The more criminal cases charged, the more defendants requiring representation.
So giving both the DA and PD $300K might stave off the worst for the DA but it would also put additional burdens upon the PD more so that it abates, constitutional burdens of criminal defense which must be met either in house with quality counsel or outsourced without that degree of quality control.
The District Attorney’s office should be commended for their good work in the community to help victims of crimes. But first things first, we should be meeting our constitutional responsibilities before taking on discretionary projects, no matter how otherwise laudable.
-marc
July 11, 2009 at 7:37 am
Here’s a definition of “progressive,” SF branch, for you: Kamala Harris wrote an op-ed for the Bay Guardian two years ago calling on the Feds to release Josh Wolf from jail. Wolfe was jailed for refusing to surrender his video tapes of a demo during which city cop Peter Shields had his head fractured. Harris was more concerned about Wolfe’s imaginary rights than she was about a serious injury to a city cop!
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-josh-wolf-case-was-really-about.html
July 11, 2009 at 12:25 am
Harold, you ARE wrong. Nothing is more aggrevating than “bloggers” who are uninformed about what they “blog” about. David Chiu was a prosecutor under Terrance Hallinan, not Kamala Harris.
July 10, 2009 at 11:07 pm
h,
That’s a good catch regarding the slight-of-hand surrounding conviction rate numbers. And after all that, conviction rates are probably still the “lowest in California,” right?
Not that I necessarily think that sky high conviction rates are something to be proud of. Kamala Harris promised to bring her “90%” conviction rate from Alameda to this town during the 2003 campaign. She hasn’t kept that promise, of course, and probably knew she couldn’t keep it. But I, for one, am glad she didn’t. When one side wins 90% of the time, that’s an indication there’s something wrong with the criminal justice system. In San Francisco, sometimes juries listen to the prosecution, sometimes they listen to the defense, and that’s exactly the way it should be, because no one is right 100%, or even 90%, of the time.
What would be nice, however, is if Kamala Harris started prosecuting the criminals who do the most damage to society – the white collar criminals, the abusive landlords, the crooked politicians, the polluting and labor-law flouting corporations… Phil Day is a start, but someone who’s been in office for 6 freakin’ years can do better than one measly prosecution!
July 10, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I’ve lived in SF for almost 35 years. In all that time, we’ve never had a first-rate D.A.
This cumulative ineptitude has turned SF into a magnet for the perpetrators of crime. They view SF as the city of choice for their misdeeds.
An example is the flocking of drug dealers here from across the state. They know the consequences of getting caught here are less than elsewhere.
This situation is now becoming ominous. Ruthless drug cartels from Mexico are infiltrating gangs in California cities and using them for their own purposes, as the LA Times and other newspapers have reported. SF is now the perfect Petri dish for the flowering of this infection.
Again, the city has become an important hub in the global, multi-billion sex-trafficking industry. It has imposed indentured servitude on many women brought here from Asia. They live and work under terrible conditions. Newspaper accounts of this scandal have not succeeded in triggering improvements.
And, of course, there are the packs of nomadic addicts and alcoholics who flock here from all across the U.S. and live on SF streets. They undermine sanitation and civil behavior, promote drug dealing, and further destabilize at-risk neighborhoods.
In many of these problem areas, police do the necessary footwork of issuing citations and warrants. But the process breaks down, once the D.A. and the courts enter the picture.
We need a D.A. who can focus the public’s attention on these manifold failures, and orchestrate the political movements that are necessary to deal with them.
Kamala Harris is not up to this challenge. And neither has any of her predecessors for four decades.
July 10, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I’ve lived in this city for over 30 years, and I’ve got to say that, based on my own experience, your analysis is dead-on, h.
July 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Paul,
I think that a more temperate tone is in order, lest you be accused of “attacking” people who happen to disagree with you. In addition, you might want to consider rereading Matt and Whitney’s piece and dissect exactly where they make “attacks” as opposed to well-reasoned arguments. In addition, in terms of what is “progressive”, your office might want to consider going to the source of society’s ills and start prosecuting white collar criminals.
July 10, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Reality?
David Chiu worked for Kamala Harris, right? Am I wrong about that? He gave her $500 right? He gave her another $500 right? He gave her another $500 right? He gave her another $500 right?
Right. David Chiu gave Kamala Harris $2,000 total for her various campaigns. She’s been his mentor, right? To say that now he’s suddenly a disinterested party when it comes to dividing City funds is disingenuous counselor.
Fact one and foremost. Harris has prosecuted far fewer violent felons than Terrence Hallinan did. Right? Of course I’m right. But then, you knew that. It’s how you got your conviction rate up. You just don’t go to court against truly dangerous people unless you have a slam dunk.
Kamala Harris is a lousy District Attorney. Before that, she was a lousy lawyer. How did someone like this reach such heights? Dare I bring in the name Willie Brown?
h.
July 10, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Paul Henderson makes a good case for providing more funds to the D.A.’s office. He’s right that poor and at-risk neighborhoods suffer the most when prosecution lags.
People who care about conditions in these neighborhoods should support the work of the D.A.’s office. We are all indebted to the D.A.’s staff for working hard to make the city safe.
However, I wish that D.A. Kamala Harris were as effective in running her office as Jeff Adachi, the Public Defender, is in running his.
Harris recently admitted that she had been directing funds from her office to immigrants who were not legally entitled to receive them. The D.A., if anyone, should know the law and enforce it.
Also, the media are just now reporting that Harris brokered a short sentence in the county jail for a repeat robber, with a long rap sheet, convicted on solid evidence. This guy should have gone to the state pen for several years. If the D.A. will not stand up assertively to hardened criminals, who will?
Finally, Harris is gearing up to run for state Attorney General. How can she spare the time and energy to do that, when her staff acknowledges that the D.A.’s office is overworked and struggling to keep pace with crime?
Thanks to Jeff Adachi for being a diligent Public Defender, and to Paul Henderson for being a diligent prosecutor.
Let’s hope Kamala Harris follows their examples.