DC Council Overrides Bowser Veto of Revised Criminal Code

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

It’s a make work program for politically connected DC lawyers. They will need to create A LOT of new judges to handle the case load. Who do you think those judges will be and how do you think they’ll be selected? The icing on the cake is that the Federal government pays for DCs judicial system. So they don’t even need to foot the bill.

As though DC doesn't already have enough rich entitled lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.

It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

[Anonymous]

Any time you can reduce the penalty for carjacking during a carjacking epidemic, well you can't pass that up.

There will be more incidents like we've seen recently with armed citizens fighting back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.

It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.

I use to get called on a regular basis. Not so much now due to the increased population. It’s been like 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, Congress will not let this go through.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).

If Republicans in the House are smart, they would make hay over this and challenge Democrats and Biden to join them in rejecting this law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.

It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.

If you're a federal employee rich enough to actually live in DC then jury duty is amazing. You get leave to attend and also get your salary paid while you're doing it. Makes me wonder if there is a SES group that lobbied for more jury trials so they can actually turn off their phones for months at a time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).

Someone will have to introduce a bill to block it, though — and House Republicans have enough on their agenda that I'm not sure they'll make time for debate over a local D.C. matter.

I'm also not sure why any voters in, say, Arizona would care that their senator voted to lower penalties for violent crime in D.C. — are they voting based on their concern for D.C. residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.

It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.

If you're a federal employee rich enough to actually live in DC then jury duty is amazing. You get leave to attend and also get your salary paid while you're doing it. Makes me wonder if there is a SES group that lobbied for more jury trials so they can actually turn off their phones for months at a time

Most trials don't last for months, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

The reality is that the effect will be the OPPOSITE. Less prosecution. Courts in DC are federally funded and judges are federally appointed, the city literally cannot expand the capacity of the judicial system. So, more misdemeanor prosecutions will be dropped due to lack of resources. Look to CA as to how that plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.

Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.

It’s a make work program for politically connected DC lawyers. They will need to create A LOT of new judges to handle the case load. Who do you think those judges will be and how do you think they’ll be selected? The icing on the cake is that the Federal government pays for DCs judicial system. So they don’t even need to foot the bill.

As though DC doesn't already have enough rich entitled lawyers.

No federal proposal to expand the judiciary in DC has been put forward. There are many judicial vacancies as it is. Misdemeanors not being prosecuted is the more likely result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).

Someone will have to introduce a bill to block it, though — and House Republicans have enough on their agenda that I'm not sure they'll make time for debate over a local D.C. matter.

I'm also not sure why any voters in, say, Arizona would care that their senator voted to lower penalties for violent crime in D.C. — are they voting based on their concern for D.C. residents?

Because they can point to their vote and say to their rube followers, "See, I owned the libs when they tried to lower penalities for violent crime."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.

It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.

Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).

Someone will have to introduce a bill to block it, though — and House Republicans have enough on their agenda that I'm not sure they'll make time for debate over a local D.C. matter.

I'm also not sure why any voters in, say, Arizona would care that their senator voted to lower penalties for violent crime in D.C. — are they voting based on their concern for D.C. residents?

Because they can point to their vote and say to their rube followers, "See, I owned the libs when they tried to lower penalities for violent crime."

Exactly. They can get Democrats on the record for reducing penalties for violent crime at a time when violent crime is increasing. Doesn’t matter that it’s only in DC. They’ll say that they will want to do the same in your community next.

For my part, I don’t understand the Democratic two-step here. On the one hand they say that violent crime is a national problem and there they cannot control it locally or something. On the other hand, locally they are communicating to the criminals that they will not be treated harshly when they commit violent crimes.

I don’t get it.