DC criminal code overhaul is ghastly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Yglesias weighs in

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1584910943129059328

I’m glad there is a little more coverage of how stupid jury trials for all misdeamenors would be. I get that everyone is super woke these days and progressive criminal justice is de rigeur, but Jesus Christ, use your brains. This would cause so many quality of life crime issues. Violent crime is on the rise. Maybe we shouldn’t be scared to arrest and enforce the law.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Because if you don’t fund it, there is no prosecution, and no penalty.

As designed.

Not quite right. Offer plea deals. If a plea deal cannot be worked out, then go forward with a jury trial if either side has demanded a trial by jury.

Why does the US incarcerate the highest percentage of its population of any country in the world ? Probably due to a combination of factors including too many petty matters criminalized and too little effort on alternative, rehabilitative sentencing alternatives.

We have a problem--a very expensive problem regarding our US criminal justice system. Maybe extreme administrations implementing extreme remedies will force the hard-liners to help formulate a better solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that aspects of the criminal code need overhaul, but the geniuses running the city council now want to modify the code so that anyone charged with potential for jail time will be able to demand a trial by jury. This should send shivers down the spine of each and everyone law abiding citizen in DC. We all know what will predictably happen, which is that any criminal committing any offense will just demand a trial because courts will be backed up for years. They will let criminals go with absolute zero punishment. All misdemeanors will now require trial by jury, which is patently absurd.

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/10/overhaul-of-dcs-120-year-old-mess-of-criminal-laws-presented-to-council/

The issue is so worrisome that even the DoJ has explicitly warned that the DC council's ideas threaten public safety and undermine the distribution of justice:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

To put this in perspective, look at this woman in CA who survived a horrific rape at hands of a criminal who only hours earlier had been let go by cops because no one would likely prosecute him since it required a jury trial.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/19/torrance-woman-recounts-harrowing-rape-by-alleged-attacker-hours-after-his-release-from-jail/

CA is exactly what will happen in DC, as the article mentions:

As of March 2017, which are the most recent statistics available, less than 1% of pretrial county jail inmates were there for misdemeanor crimes, Siddall said.

The DC council is basically telling criminals out there that all crime is not going to be punished unless it is flatout murder. Absolutely preposterous.

The OP is full of misrepresentations and lies

1. The DOJ statement (which is from the DC USAO, meaning the DC prosecutors who would be most impacted by this) says that they support it. While they mention some general concerns with certain aspects of it, they don't call out the jury trial issue at all

2. The article you linked to doesn't say anything about a jury trial being the reason not to prosecute. It's a horrible case, but they let the rapist out on bail after he was charged with a misdemeanor (possession of a knife).

3. As the article itself notes, people are almost never held in custody for a misdemeanor, regardless of any right to a jury trial. That has always been the case regardless of any right to a jury. The 1% number is totally unrelated to the jury issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any person facing potential jail time SHOULD be able to demand a jury trial.

This proposed law is not the problem; putting people in jail for up to a year for minor offenses is the real problem.

The US incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world.

Jailing people for minor offenses is expensive to taxpayers and dangerous for the individuals placed in jail or prison.

Poor people go to jail for misdemeanors. This is wrong & unfair. We need better ways to handle minor offenses.

It's funny how this is basically the opposite of how DC handles traffic offenses.

The penalties for speeding and other infractions are pretty stiff and keep getting stiffer. When people say they're disproportionate to the offense, the response is invariably, "don't speed -- obey the law and you have nothing to worry about."

But here, with penalties for real actual crimes like violent assaults, the attitude is never "if you don't commit crimes, you have nothing to worry about." The attitude is always "can't we go easier on people who commit violent assaults?"

How is granting one the option of a right to a trial by jury going easier on a defendant ?

If you were a defendant, you'd be crazy not to demand a trial. The courts will be backed up for years. Prosecutors will be begging for plea deals.

So why hasn't that happened already? Everyone charged with a felony can get a jury trial. If they all went to trial it would be impossible for the current system to keep up. But 95% plead out. Why would this be any different?

[Anonymous]

This thread is so ill-informed. A huge number of states already have a right to a jury trial for misdemeanors that carry jail time. Including crazy liberal strongholds like Arizona and Florida, which are both more generous than DC's proposed rule (6mo and 90 days jail time are the thresholds).

Guess what, it hasn't crippled their systems or backed up their courts for years. Defendants still plead, the wheels keep turning. There's no reason for these histrionics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trial by jury is in the constitution.

Not for misdemeanors. Not the worst idea, but it needs to be separated out from the rest of the legislation and then phased in over a period of years to allow for the courts to build up their capacity with more judges more personnel and a bigger jury pool to allow for additional jury trials.

In Washington State, you can request a jury trial for misdemeanors. The system works fine, but because that's been the rule for years, there are enough prosecutors, judges, etc., to handle it. You can't just flip that switch.

Did anyone read the proposed legislation before posting about it? It DOES phase in over a period of years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Because if you don’t fund it, there is no prosecution, and no penalty.

As designed.

Not quite right. Offer plea deals. If a plea deal cannot be worked out, then go forward with a jury trial if either side has demanded a trial by jury.

Why does the US incarcerate the highest percentage of its population of any country in the world ? Probably due to a combination of factors including too many petty matters criminalized and too little effort on alternative, rehabilitative sentencing alternatives.

We have a problem--a very expensive problem regarding our US criminal justice system. Maybe extreme administrations implementing extreme remedies will force the hard-liners to help formulate a better solution.

Prisons should be eliminated. They are not necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Because if you don’t fund it, there is no prosecution, and no penalty.

As designed.

Not quite right. Offer plea deals. If a plea deal cannot be worked out, then go forward with a jury trial if either side has demanded a trial by jury.

Why does the US incarcerate the highest percentage of its population of any country in the world ? Probably due to a combination of factors including too many petty matters criminalized and too little effort on alternative, rehabilitative sentencing alternatives.

We have a problem--a very expensive problem regarding our US criminal justice system. Maybe extreme administrations implementing extreme remedies will force the hard-liners to help formulate a better solution.

Prisons should be eliminated. They are not necessary.

I like where this is going! All crime should be legal for 24 hours! Let's Purge!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Because if you don’t fund it, there is no prosecution, and no penalty.

As designed.

Not quite right. Offer plea deals. If a plea deal cannot be worked out, then go forward with a jury trial if either side has demanded a trial by jury.

Why does the US incarcerate the highest percentage of its population of any country in the world ? Probably due to a combination of factors including too many petty matters criminalized and too little effort on alternative, rehabilitative sentencing alternatives.

We have a problem--a very expensive problem regarding our US criminal justice system. Maybe extreme administrations implementing extreme remedies will force the hard-liners to help formulate a better solution.

Prisons should be eliminated. They are not necessary.

I like where this is going! All crime should be legal for 24 hours! Let's Purge!

Fully agree.

The number of criminals that would eliminate themselves (each other) in the first event would probably drop the overall crime rate by half or more.

[Anonymous]

A toddler gets shot, and the city council's response is to radically reduce criminal penalties. Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trial by jury is in the constitution.

So are guns.

Oh really? Guns = jury trial. Pretty MAGA of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

How do you even look at yourself in the mirror? Complete lunacy.

[Anonymous]

City council is voting on this tomorrow. Criminal rejoice! Soon D.C. will not even have slaps on the wrist for most crimes. Amazing that crime is so bad and the city council's answer is to radically reduce punishments. Our elected leaders are off in la la land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:City council is voting on this tomorrow. Criminal rejoice! Soon D.C. will not even have slaps on the wrist for most crimes. Amazing that crime is so bad and the city council's answer is to radically reduce punishments. Our elected leaders are off in la la land.

Yep. The requirement re: jury trial seems to be the least of the worries.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:City council is voting on this tomorrow. Criminal rejoice! Soon D.C. will not even have slaps on the wrist for most crimes. Amazing that crime is so bad and the city council's answer is to radically reduce punishments. Our elected leaders are off in la la land.

Yep. The requirement re: jury trial seems to be the least of the worries.....

+1