There's a new sheriff in town!

January 4, 2022 4:30 PM

Manhattan has a new District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. And now that he has been sworn in, he is coming in hot with a policy memo directing Manhattan prosecutors to stop prosecuting certain crimes (e.g. misdemeanor pot, jumping turnstiles, prostitution) and sharply curtailing pretrial detention, in addition to a number of additional significant reforms (like a presumption that cases against adolescent defendants will go to family court).

The full memo is truly worth a read, and there's something notable on every page - like the special care taken to avoid immigration consequences when prosecuting noncitizens, and the presumption of nonincarceration.

It begins with a letter describing Bragg's perspective on these policies:

Growing up in Harlem in the 1980s, I saw every side of the criminal justice system from a young age. Before I was 21 years old, I had a gun pointed at me six times: three by police officers and three by people who were not police officers. I had a knife to my neck, a semi-automatic gun to my head, and a homicide victim on my doorstep. In my adult life, I have posted bail for family, answered the knock of the warrant squad on my door in the early morning, and watched the challenges of a loved one who was living with me after returning from incarceration. Late last year, during a stretch of multiple shootings within three blocks of my home, I had perhaps the most sobering experience of my life: seeing ––through the eyes of my children–– the aftermath of a shooting directly in front of our home, as we walked together past yellow crime scene tape, seemingly countless shell casings, and a gun, just to get home.

The letter goes on to describe the principles that inform Bragg's policies.

Here is a layman-friendly summary from Gothamist.

posted by prefpara (57 comments total)

Candidly, I am tearful.
posted by prefpara at 4:32 PM on January 4, 2022 [7 favorites]

FUCKING. WORD.

I hope he makes it stick. I hope he makes it work. He's one big, central cog in a nasty, antiblack, antihuman machine.

Read the Gothamist article for the usual bootlicker quotes.
posted by lalochezia at 4:40 PM on January 4, 2022 [9 favorites]

Absolute best bootlicker quote in the Gothamist article: “Police officers don’t want to be sent out to enforce laws that the district attorney won’t prosecute,” Lynch (president of the Police Benevolent Association) said.

Yeah, that's right! Thanks for making the smile on my face a little broader, buddy!
posted by prefpara at 4:43 PM on January 4, 2022 [26 favorites]

The police union and conservative media are going to be up in arms.

Good.

Also interesting: New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg pledges to focus on Trump investigations
posted by AlSweigart at 4:51 PM on January 4, 2022 [10 favorites]

Hope it goes better than the other side of the country: Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin heads to San Francisco voters in June
posted by meowzilla at 4:52 PM on January 4, 2022 [6 favorites]

This particular provision seems surprising. No jail time for violent offenses which do not cause serious physical injury (e.g. armed robbery)? Shouldn't this kind of change be made by the state legislature rather than a District Attorney?

The Office will not seek a carceral sentence other than for homicide or other cases
involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes
serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal
Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to
commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law, unless required by law. For
any charge of attempt to cause serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument, ADAs
must obtain the approval of an ECAB supervisor to seek a carceral sentence.

This rule may be excepted only in extraordinary circumstances based on a holistic
analysis of the facts, criminal history, victim’s input (particularly in cases of
violence or trauma), and any other information available. ADAs shall also consider
the impacts of incarceration on public safety, the impacts of incarceration on
communities, the financial cost of incarceration, the racially disparate use of
incarceration, and the barriers to housing, employment, and education created as a
consequence on a period of incarceration.

posted by russilwvong at 4:59 PM on January 4, 2022 [4 favorites]

I was about to say "sounds like Chesa Boudin over here in SF..."
posted by kschang at 5:06 PM on January 4, 2022

This particular provision seems surprising. No jail time for violent offenses which do not cause serious physical injury (e.g. armed robbery)?

It's not "no jail time," it's "you better make a good case that it merits jail time rather than some other penalty."
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:07 PM on January 4, 2022 [9 favorites]

And considering that just getting arrested in New York City was a death sentence for 15 men in 2021, I as a New Yorker support the fuck out of this. New York's criminal justice system is completely fucked up and overburdened and it's ruined countless lives for no legally justifiable reason.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:16 PM on January 4, 2022 [25 favorites]

Penal Law - PEN § 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
reading that balliwick law is, fuck.
"In fact, due to confusion by both NYPD police officers and even prosecutors from the Manhattan and Brooklyn District Attorney’s Offices to their counterparts in Queens and the Bronx, sometimes there is a simple misunderstanding of the law and the improper charging of Second Degree Obstruction of Governmental Administration."
Even lawyers point it out.

I'd just remove turnstiles, all of them esp. in light of the recent trajedy.
The motor vehicle laws are very cool but it addreses that it will not apply to felonies like hit and run etc.
posted by clavdivs at 5:29 PM on January 4, 2022 [2 favorites]

I think back to how credulous I was, reading all those articles and book reviews about how the prosecution turnstile jumpers lead to huge reductions in overall crime.
posted by brachiopod at 5:37 PM on January 4, 2022 [3 favorites]

A lot of this is very good and is aimed at reducing overcharging.

But I have to ask - if someone breaks into my house armed with a deadly weapon, ransacks the place, terrifies my family and steals my shit, there's no sentence? Is this a joke?

Trespass is now just plain legal in NYC?

Fare evasion, which costs the MTA millions every year and has gotten significantly worse, isn't a crime anymore?

I want all of this to work. I want this to make everyone safer. I want to be proven wrong.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:02 PM on January 4, 2022 [5 favorites]

Thank you so much for posting this, prefpara. Wonderful news.

I'd love a little help understanding this new policy:

When requesting bail, ADAs must request a partially or unsecured bond in the same amount as the cash bail request.

I am having trouble working out what this means concretely, and an example might help. I think it is like "either you can pay $1,000 in bail right now or you can use a bail bond company to post the bond in the amount of $1,000" (where right now the bond might be like 10 times as much as the immediate-payment amount)?
posted by brainwane at 6:07 PM on January 4, 2022

No one is saying no sentence. They're saying no prison sentences in the vast majority of cases where sending people to prison isn't going to address whatever caused them to commit a crime, and is likely to increase their risk of recidivism. There are lots of other things people can be sentenced to that don't involve locking them in a cage. Probation supervision, community service, substance abuse treatment (inpatient or outpatient), mental health services, anger management classes, violence prevention programs, GPS monitoring, stay-away orders, fines: all of these and more can be part of non-carceral sentences.

What this DA is doing is saying, sending people to prison isn't making society safer in the majority of cases, and it's often making society less safe given how many people are victimized in prison and come back more broken than they left. He's asking, what can we as a community and as a society offer people who commit crimes that allows them to take accountability for their actions and that might actually set them on a better path in life where they are less likely to commit crimes or victimize people in the future? Prison is not an effective crime control strategy. This policy forces prosecutors and the system as a whole to think about what is.
posted by decathecting at 6:11 PM on January 4, 2022 [52 favorites]

And I mean really after decades of pretty much doing the opposite of this to no good effect isn't it worth it to give it a try and see how it goes? Not that there won't be tons of police officers and other people trying to sabotage it in their own ways.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:22 PM on January 4, 2022 [19 favorites]

I'd love a little help understanding this new policy:
When requesting bail, ADAs must request a partially or unsecured bond in the same amount as the cash bail request.

Unsecured or partially secured bond is not the same as a surety bond (bail bondsman). An insurance company bond (bail bondsman) is a type of secured bond.

Unsecured bond is basically saying, "if you don't show up for court, you owe us $1000, so not only will there be a warrant out for you, but you'll have to pay us the bond money you promised." So it's not "secured" by any financial payment, but by the person's promise and the threat of those monetary consequences.

Partially secured bond means you pay some of the money, and promise to pay the rest if you skip court. The benefit of this is that partially secured bond is refundable. So, if you have a 10% surety bond, you pay $100 to the bail bondsman, and then even if you show up to all your court dates and are eventually found not guilty or have your case dismissed, you never get the $100 back. With a 10% partially secured bond, you pay the $100 to the court, and if you make all of your court dates, you get your $100 back at the end of your case, because you kept the promise to appear that your payment was meant to secure. It means that families aren't going into debt and losing hundreds or thousands of dollars to keep loved ones off Rikers.

New York State has 9 legal forms of bail. Traditionally, at least in NYC, the courts have only used and prosecutors have only consented to two of them: cash, and insurance company. Bragg's new policy is that his office is going to consider all 9, and favor the forms that allow people to get off Rikers without being from a rich family or permanently forfeiting money to for-profit companies regardless of the outcome of your case. The for-profit bail bonds companies are going to hate this, which is part of how you know it's a good idea.
posted by decathecting at 6:23 PM on January 4, 2022 [27 favorites]

But I have to ask - if someone breaks into my house armed with a deadly weapon, ransacks the place, terrifies my family and steals my shit, there's no sentence? Is this a joke?

While it sounds like the actual policies are more nuanced, this is exactly how some of this comes across. I would expect some public course correction on this at some point.

That said, these overall sound like really good changes.

Growing up in Harlem in the 1980s, I saw every side of the criminal justice system from a young age.

This kind of experience should be required for people to get this job -- someone who has seen this stuff from the ground level. I found this part really powerful and hadn't realized before how much that was missing.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:31 PM on January 4, 2022 [6 favorites]

Fare evasion, which costs the MTA millions every year and has gotten significantly worse, isn't a crime anymore?

Even setting aside the human cost; how much does it cost to convict a fare evader? How much income tax revenue is lost from the employment problems that result from that prosecution? I'd bet it costs other agencies way more than nominal losses incurred by the MTA.

Just make the charge a civil infraction like a speeding ticket. FFS no one needs to go to jail over "defrauding" the MTA of three bucks.
posted by Mitheral at 7:31 PM on January 4, 2022 [43 favorites]

Meanwhile, here in my Seattle, a Republican running on a conservative law-and-order platform with vanishingly little legal experience replaced the three-term center-left incumbent ☹️.
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:36 PM on January 4, 2022

While it sounds like the actual policies are more nuanced, this is exactly how some of this comes across

To whom though? Not the majority of voters it seems. It will definitely be the path of political attack from the bail bondsman and prisons losing money.
posted by eustatic at 7:46 PM on January 4, 2022 [2 favorites]

I want all of this to work. I want this to make everyone safer. I want to be proven wrong.
posted by 1adam12

Eponironical, no?
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:21 PM on January 4, 2022 [8 favorites]

The key line in the section about not seeking incarceration for certain crimes is “unless required by law”. There are many crimes that have mandatory minimums under NY law. This does not overrule those.
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:29 PM on January 4, 2022 [8 favorites]

Just make the charge a civil infraction like a speeding ticket.

Most of the time now it already is. You get a summons for a civil penalty of $100. In a fit of pandemic absentmindedness, I forgot to tap in on the select bus once last year and, after nine zillion times dutifully paying the fare without getting inspected, that was the very first time I ever saw MTA enforcement. I almost died of embarrassment when they filled out the summons. But of course I was a nice middle-class white lady. The officer even told me how to challenge it without my asking! To get criminally charged takes real effort, or looking the wrong way.

Important to remember here that the DA doesn't decide whether a convicted defendant gets a carceral sentence or not: the judge does that, according to the law. Armed robbery carries a five-year mandatory minimum in NY. There will, of course, be many marginal cases where the sentence the DA asks for carries significant weight. But he doesn't decide, and under NY law often the judge doesn't have all that much discretion, either. They're still charging armed robbery, albeit under slightly more narrow circumstances than the law might permit.
posted by praemunire at 8:44 PM on January 4, 2022 [3 favorites]

(And I, personally, would feel much safer with both cops and the DA focusing on solving major felonies rather than ruining the lives of seventeen-year-olds getting free subway rides. Of course the former is a lot more and a lot more challenging work than the latter.)
posted by praemunire at 8:47 PM on January 4, 2022 [7 favorites]

@showbiz_liz, yes, my very first thought was, "Maybe this will make conditions at Riker's a little less dire."
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:01 PM on January 4, 2022 [1 favorite]

the low level drug and property crime reforms sound good, but (per the memo) basically capping determinate serious sentences at 20, mostly capping indeterminate at 20 to life, and banning life without parole completely is just wrong. after 10 years of working on mostly non-capital homicide cases as a prosecutor, i can tell you the horror to victims and their families shouldn't be underestimated. multiple-murder gang shootings, torture-killers in some back alley motel, bungled robberies with multiple people dead... these are day to day crimes that get little media attention. let's not wrap these together with other areas of more commonsense reform. progressive prosecutors often run on ending misdemeanor and low level police extortion (great!) and ending capital punishment (sure), but i have yet to see a progressive prosecutor RUN and get elected on capping punishment for non-capital homicide and get voters to knowingly approve. yet somehow when they get elected, this is one of the first things they do, often appointing NGO staff and former public defenders to their exec staffs. i don't think voters would approve if they knew.

(yes, i realize the memo re dispositions couches the leniency as "absent extraordinary circumstances" etc.., but ordinarily what this means is that typical cases with victims who don't have power and who don't get PR will not count as "extraordinary.")
posted by wibari at 11:27 PM on January 4, 2022 [3 favorites]

praemunire: Armed robbery carries a five-year mandatory minimum in NY.

Thanks, that's important information. I did a quick search and found some illustrative explanation of minimum sentences in New York state for robbery, burglary, assault, drugs, and weapons offenses.
posted by russilwvong at 11:34 PM on January 4, 2022 [1 favorite]

Footnotes, motherfuckers. He has them.
posted by flabdablet at 12:50 AM on January 5, 2022 [1 favorite]

capping determinate serious sentences at 20, mostly capping indeterminate at 20 to life, and banning life without parole completely is just wrong

Really? Works fine in other jurisdictions. There's nothing that special about New York.
posted by plonkee at 1:41 AM on January 5, 2022 [7 favorites]

But I have to ask - if someone breaks into my house armed with a deadly weapon, ransacks the place, terrifies my family and steals my shit, there's no sentence? Is this a joke?

Huh? That would be home invasion and armed robbery, was that mentioned here?

We're also not talking about sentences, we're talking about prosecution.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:06 AM on January 5, 2022 [7 favorites]

Am I reading correctly that they don't plan on charging drivers for violations, which would include moving violations eg running red lights?
posted by xigxag at 5:26 AM on January 5, 2022 [1 favorite]

progressive prosecutors often run on ending misdemeanor and low level police extortion (great!) and ending capital punishment (sure), but i have yet to see a progressive prosecutor RUN and get elected on capping punishment for non-capital homicide and get voters to knowingly approve.

Bragg was not my top choice in the primary (which is ranked). He might have been second, I don't remember (were there only three? I remember ranking him somewhere in the top half). Why? There were more progressive options.
posted by hoyland at 5:29 AM on January 5, 2022

What this DA is doing is saying, sending people to prison isn't making society safer in the majority of cases, and it's often making society less safe given how many people are victimized in prison and come back more broken than they left.

This and also, prison is a dangerous radicalizing force for many people, including white supremacists; not sending people to prison is a very good thing.

I'm interested to see 1) how successful he is able to be at achieving his goals and 2) how much, if at all, he will end up needing to compromise his principles simply because of the responsibilities of this job. In other words, I wish him the very very very best in things like cutting back on bail requirements and certainly in terms of not sending people to prison, and I also hope that the job doesn't corrupt him; he seems like a good man trying to do good things within a bad system and that doesn't always work out well even for people with the best of intentions. I hope he can stay strong and make a positive difference.
posted by an octopus IRL at 6:41 AM on January 5, 2022 [2 favorites]

Am I reading correctly that they don't plan on charging drivers for violations, which would include moving violations eg running red lights?

Sure seems like it and what a terrible decision in a city where the NYPD already barely enforces these laws and drivers know it, and the DOT is too weak to implement design changes that obviate the need for police enforcement. New York's streets are more hostile than I've seen them in decades (or ever).

We just got out of one of the worst years for traffic violence in this city and I don't think any voter asked for more of it. I guess I'm glad I live in Queens? Oh no, it stinks here, too. You can kill a deliverista on a scooter while driving 50 mph on a residential road and Katz won't prosecute you.
posted by Captaintripps at 6:41 AM on January 5, 2022 [1 favorite]

I think a more careful reading is needed here. Of course I don't know what violations exactly or statutes, but it doesn't seem like open season on drivers or moving violations or anything actually dangerous (bold mine).

Aggravated Unlicensed Operation, VTL § 511.1. Note that any vehicular collision
resulting in any physical injury should be pursued as an act of reckless driving, reckless
endangerment, negligent or reckless assault, failure to yield, or any other applicable
statute. This policy addresses only criminalization of a failure to pay fines and does not
address the criminalization of dangerous driving. Also, this charge may be prosecuted
as part of any accusatory instrument containing a charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law
1212, 1192, or 511.2.
e) Any violation, traffic infraction, or other non-criminal offense not accompanied by a
misdemeanor or felony.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:51 AM on January 5, 2022 [2 favorites]

after 10 years of working on mostly non-capital homicide cases as a prosecutor,

I'm sorry, but--a prosecutor who doesn't understand how sentencing and mandatory minimums work?

i can tell you the horror to victims and their families shouldn't be underestimated

You went to law school. You presumably took crim, maybe more than one term of it. Someone must have taught you what the handful of generally recognized purposes of incarceration are. Can you explain to me which of these purposes will not ordinarily be satisfied by 20 to life?

I am fully aware of the horror any murder visits on any family. It is weird to me that you think a particular variation in what is an extremely harsh sentence for the offender either way somehow ameliorates the awfulness of losing a family member to violence.
posted by praemunire at 7:12 AM on January 5, 2022 [8 favorites]

This and also, prison is a dangerous radicalizing force for many people, including white supremacists; not sending people to prison is a very good thing.

If you watch old episodes of Lockup it's hard not to suspect that the state of California in particular single-handedly rebuilt its white supremacist gangs by essentially abandoning their penitentiaries to race-based gang rule.
posted by praemunire at 7:21 AM on January 5, 2022 [1 favorite]

This is good news. Thanks!

Having watched my city's "shockingly progressive" State's Attorney fumble pretty much every meaningful reform attempt - while still being the best candidate who has had the chance at the job in a century and saving many lives - I'll believe it when I see the cops and prosecutors actually implement it. But, I want to believe. It's sure better than no memo.
posted by eotvos at 8:03 AM on January 5, 2022 [1 favorite]

Former public defender Alana Sivin writes a Twitter thread, saying, "I want to highlight one of the most important parts: the new policy re:robberies and petit larcenies, and why it’s so important."

When I was a public defender, I can’t tell you how many cases I defended where someone was alleged to have walked into a store – whether it was a Duane Reade, a CVS – and stolen something.

A lot of times it was underwear or t-shirts, as a lot of people who enter the criminal legal system can’t afford basic necessities.

Simple petit larceny right? Except for one thing. On the way out, store clerks would say that they thought they saw the person stealing “indicate” that they had a weapon.
....

I’ve seen so many people spend years in prison for stealing maybe $25 worth of items, simply because a store clerk said they saw them point to their pocket.

The people who were charged under this loophole were almost always Black, Brown, and poor. Because our previous DA did everything he could to overcharge and keep intact a system that locked up marginalized people while providing no accountability for people in power.

@ManhattanDAs policy changes this. It gives DAs the discretion to only charge people with robbery in these sorts of circumstance if the robbery creates a *genuine risk of harm.*

That way DAs are focusing on *real* robberies, not a harmless person who walks into a store to steal underwear with a hand in his pocket.

This policy actually isn’t radical. It still allows DAs to charge people with possession of a firearm (a felony), and gives the discretion to DAs to decide whether someone committed a REAL robbery vs. a petit larceny that's being up-charged....

posted by brainwane at 9:16 AM on January 5, 2022 [16 favorites]

But I have to ask - if someone breaks into my house armed with a deadly weapon, ransacks the place, terrifies my family and steals my shit, there's no sentence? Is this a joke? Trespass is now just plain legal in NYC?

The scenario you are describing is not "trespass" if they are also "terrifying your family" and "stealing your shit", since I believe theft is still a punishable offense.

Whether you were innocently unaware of the difference or whether you were attempting to scare us all with a strawman is a question I leave you to answer for yourself.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:19 AM on January 5, 2022 [9 favorites]

I think a more careful reading is needed here.

VTL 1212 is reckless driving, 1192 is DUI, and 511.2 is Aggravated Unlicensed 2nd degree. Running a red light is covered under VTL 1110a and/or 1111(d)-1. So I do hope I'm still not reading carefully enough, but far as I can tell red lights don't seem to be included in the exceptions to the "don't enforce violations" rule. I guess it's barely enforced now, and they could always charge the driver with reckless driving (a misdemeanor, not a felony, so unfortunately the felony exception doesn't kick in) if they're particularly egregious about blasting through that light. Oh well, I always assume by default while walking around in Manhattan that any vehicle in motion will remain in motion regardless of the traffic signal, so it won't change much for me personally but if this becomes a thing, it will probably embolden drivers to pay even less attention to the rules of the road than they already do.
posted by xigxag at 9:26 AM on January 5, 2022

Aggravated Unlicensed Operation, VTL § 511.1. Note that any vehicular collision
resulting in any physical injury should be pursued as an act of reckless driving, reckless
endangerment, negligent or reckless assault, failure to yield, or any other applicable
statute. This policy addresses only criminalization of a failure to pay fines and does not
address the criminalization of dangerous driving. Also, this charge may be prosecuted
as part of any accusatory instrument containing a charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law
1212, 1192, or 511.2.
e) Any violation, traffic infraction, or other non-criminal offense not accompanied by a
misdemeanor or felony.

Isn't this saying that the charge of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (that does NOT cause an accident that caused injury) can be prosecuted as part of any indictment containing a charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL 1212 is reckless driving, 1192 is DUI, and 511.2 is Aggravated Unlicensed 2nd degree)? Instead of being it's own thing...which leads to jail time and fines on it's own.

And that if you had fines for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation, they could NOT imprison you for failure to pay fines associated as such?

This is my understanding from reading that but as you can see, I am absolutely not a lawyer.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:32 AM on January 5, 2022

Here is a really thorough rundown of Bragg’s planned approach. It’s a lot more nuanced and thoughtful than most news articles are presenting it as.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:03 AM on January 5, 2022 [7 favorites]

praemunire: Armed robbery carries a five-year mandatory minimum in NY.

I think Bragg may be on shaky ground here.

Peter Moskos:

If you commit an armed robbery in a commercial setting, and you display a dangerous instrument that does not create a genuine risk of physical harm [think no bullets or replica gun], the charge will not be armed robbery but petit larceny [theft, think shoplifting].

The specific provision he's referring to is from page 3:

6. The following offenses shall be charged as follows:
a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.

PL 160.10 refers to robbery in the second degree. PL 155.25 refers to petit larceny, a misdemeanor.
posted by russilwvong at 2:51 PM on January 5, 2022

The Alana Sivin thread linked above by brainwane provides the strongest defense of the new policy on armed robbery vs. petit larceny. But I think it's going to be a tough sell to the public.
posted by russilwvong at 2:56 PM on January 5, 2022

I'm sorry, but--a prosecutor who doesn't understand how sentencing and mandatory minimums work?

i understand it just fine. i'm not sure what you're getting at here, at all, other than snark.

Can you explain to me which of these purposes will not ordinarily be satisfied by 20 to life?

sure. sentences longer than 20 to life, generally meaning longer than a 20 year term before parole, give victims' families peace of mind that the killer or sex offender (the latter, in the case of mandatory mins for states that have "one-strike" rules for egregious sexual offenses, tho i'm not sure if NY does) will remain behind bars for the rest of their (the families') life.

one of the main drivers of distrust in the criminal justice system by victims is that they feel left out of the process and not cared for, ignored. knowing the killer will not be paroled tells them that their loved one mattered.

it also serves the functions of deterrence (though the data can be mixed on that) and retribution. and for some crimes i've seen, 20 to life is not enough retribution, in my view.
posted by wibari at 7:11 PM on January 5, 2022

"Retribution," is that supposed to be the purpose of the criminal justice system? Why don't we just shoot every felon in the head and be done with it then?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:16 PM on January 5, 2022 [4 favorites]

i understand it just fine.

Do you? Because I easily get why non-lawyers reading this post might not naturally understand that a DA not choosing to "seek a carceral sentence" doesn't mean that one won't be imposed in a situation where a person has been charged with and convicted of a crime carrying a mandatory minimum prison term, but it seems hard to believe anyone who's had even modest experience working in criminal justice wouldn't. Alvin Bragg can't "ban[] life without parole completely" or any of the other things you suggest. He doesn't sentence people, and he hasn't stated that he won't bring charges potentially carrying such sentences. I don't know whether you don't know that, in which case I can hardly believe you are or were a prosecutor, or you're just reflexively vomiting forth pro-LEO rhetoric without realizing you're not in a room where everyone's in on the graft.

sentences longer than 20 to life, generally meaning longer than a 20 year term before parole, give victims' families peace of mind

Yeah, no, victims' (supposed) peace of mind isn't one of them.

knowing the killer will not be paroled tells them that their loved one mattered.

So in every country where there are no (or almost no) life sentences, no victims matter? 25 years of a person's life, well, that's just a slap on the wrist, but life, now that means something?

it also serves the functions of deterrence (though the data can be mixed on that)

You mean: there's no good data. Why would there be? Who murders someone because they're cool with a twenty-year sentence, but would be stopped by the idea of life?

and for some crimes i've seen, 20 to life is not enough retribution, in my view.

Annnnnd this is what it comes down to (though it at least is one of the purposes that many theoretically recognize). You need designated scapegoats to satisfy your sense of a just world, and there's conveniently a group you can take your pick from. Don't impute that damaged soul to everyone else.

Criminal justice reform is such a difficult and important issue. I wish law enforcement weren't so pervasively spiritually corrupting so that cops and prosecutors could generally make a contribution instead of acting like the publicists for state-sponsored violence.
posted by praemunire at 10:10 PM on January 5, 2022 [13 favorites]

Do you? Because I easily get why non-lawyers reading this post might not naturally understand that a DA not choosing to "seek a carceral sentence" doesn't mean that one won't be imposed in a situation where a person has been charged with and convicted of a crime carrying a mandatory minimum prison term, but it seems hard to believe anyone who's had even modest experience working in criminal justice wouldn't.

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you just have an axe to grind. Nothing I said had anything to do with the part of the memo regarding non-carceral sentences. I am talking about the part of the memo that discusses the lengthiest carceral sentences, section C.4. My point was that violent crimes, especially homicide, multiple homicide (including but not limited to murder) and violent sexual offenses shouldn't be arbitrarily capped the way C.4 says they should be.

Alvin Bragg can't "ban[] life without parole completely" or any of the other things you suggest. He doesn't sentence people, and he hasn't stated that he won't bring charges potentially carrying such sentences.

The memo at C.4.d. states that he will not seek LWOP. So, yeah.

I can hardly believe you are or were a prosecutor, or you're just reflexively vomiting forth pro-LEO rhetoric without realizing you're not in a room where everyone's in on the graft. you're just reflexively vomiting forth pro-LEO rhetoric

"Are or were" hahah ok. Thanks for disparaging my career. I think of the two of us, your comments are more accurately characterized as "vomiting." I'm a public servant. I am not "pro-LEO" reflexively or otherwise. I agree that police often exploit marginalized people and I support progressive prosecutors who prosecute LEO misconduct. You're the one disparaging people, including victims, making wild assertions and, frankly, pretty offensive remarks. I don't think most American voters would support the sort of stuff you've said so far.

Anyway, clearly you have no interest in a good faith discussion. I'm glad the defense bar where I work is more reasonable and serious than you are. Thanks, I'm done with this thread.
posted by wibari at 11:41 PM on January 5, 2022

The link to Alvin Bragg's site that showbiz_liz provided above is excellent, with very clear and thoughtful responses to some of the quick emotional reactions here, e.g.:

Fare evasion, which costs the MTA millions every year and has gotten significantly worse, isn't a crime anymore?

Bragg's position notes all he's doing is removing the 30% of turnstile jumping cases the previous DA for some reason was diverting to criminal court, and putting them with the other 70% of those cases who are already being handled by the Transit Adjudication Bureau, so his office doesn't have to waste time on them. It's a clear, thoughtful and efficient position:

2. Turnstile Jumping
Fare evasion is usually a crime of poverty, and the harm caused by depriving the MTA of $2.75 does not justify the drastic consequences of a criminal prosecution. More practically, the issue with turnstile jumping is not whether it should be legal, it is whether stealing $2.75 from the government should be prosecuted in a civil tribunal or in the same criminal courts where murders are prosecuted. The NYPD already sends turnstile jumping cases to the MTA’s civil Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) by default, and TAB already handles over 70 percent of the NYPD’s fare evasion cases. The only reason that some of these arrests are sent to criminal court in Manhattan is because DA Vance has exceptions to his policy not to prosecute most of these cases. For the reasons outlined above, I will have no such exceptions.

Points 1 through 9 starting with "Marijuana Misdemeanors" are the meat of what he's declining to prosecute, and all of them sound very good to me in ways that stand up to emotional "BUT THEY'RE CRIMES!!!" outbursts.
posted by mediareport at 3:14 PM on January 6, 2022 [4 favorites]

I mean, who has a serious argument against the excellent section below?

6. Consensual Sex Trade

I will not prosecute any person for selling sex, without exception, and that includes charges like the infamous “walking while Trans” prohibition in Penal Law section 240.37, which I have repeatedly advocated to have repealed. I also will not participate in the type of cases that the NYPD Vice Squad has focused on for years: undercover police officers posing as sex workers seeking to engage people in conversations about exchanging sex for money. The racial disparities in enforcement in this area are deeply disturbing. For the past four years in New York City, 89% of persons charged for selling sex were nonwhite and 93% of those accused of trying to buy sex were nonwhite.[lxi] This is so notwithstanding evidence that the majority of people regularly buying sex are white.[lxii]

Throughout my career, I have focused on dismantling criminal systems that jeopardize public safety. I will do the same here. I will focus on coercive practices regularly done by persons known colloquially as pimps and on crimes like money laundering that flow from such practices. I also will partner with community-based organizations to identify and assist people in the sex trade seeking social service supports and avenues to leave the sex trade.
posted by mediareport at 3:15 PM on January 6, 2022 [3 favorites]

Aaron Chalfin on Twitter, reviewing relevant research:

The progressive prosecutor's gamble is that many offenders aren't nearly as motivated as we think they are, that the criminal justice system further entrenches criminal identity and that a lighter touch could actually enhance public safety. Could that be right?

It's an interesting thread, presenting studies both for and against.
posted by russilwvong at 10:58 AM on January 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

Swaggering Eric Adams Has Strong Sweaty Cop Energy:

In keeping with a campaign promise, [Mayor Adams] affirmed that he will be reviving the NYPD’s anti-crime team, a unit which had been disbanded for aggressively over-policing Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, accruing frequent civilian abuse complaints and amassing so many fatalities the NYPD couldn’t fabricate enough justifications. At a press conference during which he stood with his newly appointed NYPD executive team, Adams evinced support for a gang-focused crime crackdown that explicitly promises to send teenagers as young as 15 and 16 years old to prison.

On Thursday, he was joined by Gov. Kathy Hochul in announcing a plan to reach police “omnipresence” on the city’s subways, despite crime levels on public transport being at 25-year lows. On Friday, he announced that his deputy mayor for public safety, overseeing the NYPD, would be Philip Banks, who was an unindicted co-conspirator in a sweeping federal investigation of police and political corruption; named his younger brother Bernard, a retired NYPD sergeant who worked for the last decade as assistant director for parking at Virginia Commonwealth University, as a deputy police commissioner; and saw his newly appointed police commissioner send out a memo to officers blasting the newly elected Manhattan district attorney’s plans for justice reform.

Those moves came after the mayor, in response to an open letter from 29 incoming City Council members—a majority of the city’s legislative branch—rejected their request to walk away from his support for restoring the inhumane practice of solitary confinement. At the same time, he used smoke-and-mirrors cop-speak to insist his support for confining prisoners in isolation—you know, solitary confinement—is “punitive segregation,” something totally different.

posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:56 AM on January 9, 2022 [3 favorites]

(a) What is the rest of the NYPD doing if they have to have a specific “anti-crime” team? (b) It sounds like they are utterly confused about “anti” versus “pro”.
posted by eviemath at 4:39 PM on January 9, 2022 [3 favorites]

JFC, is Adams going to find a way to actually be worse than DeBlasio?
posted by prefpara at 10:18 AM on January 10, 2022

Took barely more than a week for the Adams administration to go from "entertainingly corrupt" to "ghoulish," but here he is blaming the fatal victims of a slumlord who served on his transition team.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:37 PM on January 10, 2022 [4 favorites]

Adams continues his reign of (t)error:

Corporate media keeps referring to NYC mayor Eric Adams bringing back a “controversial police unit” but fail to mention that the unit was shuttered after police shot 41 times at Amadou Diallo in his driveway, killing him for no reason.

At this point "worse than DeBlasio" seems to be a given, the question now is really how fascist will he go, and how long liberal Substack assholes will keep presenting him as the Messiah of Urban Policing.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:29 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]