DC criminal code overhaul is ghastly

[Anonymous]

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?"

[Anonymous]

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.

I would have agreed with this until I served on a jury. Now I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Jury trials are incredibly cumbersome for everyone involved. Just the process of jury selection is a huge PITA. It's totally worth it as a (constitutionally mandated) form of justice, but wow is it hard to do. And the shorter the trial and the lesser the infraction, the less worth it it is from a systems standpoint.

While I agree with you in theory because it's sort of ridiculous you could go to jail for a year without being entitled to a jury trial, in reality the thought of serving on juries for minor infractions like loitering or public drunkenness is INSANE. I can't even explain to you how much of a waste of time that would feel like for everyone involved. You'd have to impanel a jury (which by itself takes a minus of a couple hours and requires the courts to issue a ton of jury summons just to get enough people available for the juries needed), and call witnesses, which in the case of most misdemeanors is going to wind up just being the arresting officer and maybe one other person (whose time is also valuable -- do you want to go testify in court every time a fight breaks out in front of your business or you witness someone getting on a bus without paying?). The defendant, whose testimony would actually be helpful, probably won't testify because standard practice is to discourage defendants for testifying and they are constitutionally protected from having to do so. Witness testimony will take an hour though, even though you're only hearing from a couple people, because the process of bringing the witnesses in, swearing them in, and going through the often technical aspects of the testimony (like having to ask the arresting officer a specific set of carefully phrased questions in order to formally introduce the arrest report into evidence) is cumbersome as well.

Then the jury has to deliberate. Even if most juries in these cases will just take one vote, they will wind up talking about the case for at least a few minutes.

Point is, even a fairly simple trial for a minor infraction is going to take up most of a full day and will require the efforts of around 20 people, minimum (jury, judge, attorneys, clerks, witnesses, defendant). Plus think of how much time beat cops will wind up having to spend in court for this -- do you really want to be employing police who spend 50-60% of their time testifying in court? Is that their main job?

I don't know what the answer is. Some of these charges are BS (loitering is a ridiculous thing to lock someone up for, and probably shouldn't be a crime at all) and yes, sometimes the punishments don't make sense. But I think the key then is to address the punishments and figure out something more fair and appropriate, including leaning more heavily on probation and community service. I do NOT want to serving on a jury for misdemeanors every other year, and I also don't think the court system can handle the back up this would cause. It would also cause major delays on jury trials for stuff like murder, where actually all the hassle of a trial is worth it because you're talking about justice for the victim and their family and the potential for the defendant to go to prison for many years. Imagine if all murder trials were delayed a couple years because the court system was so busy trying people for not throwing their trash in the trash can.

[Anonymous]

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.

I would have agreed with this until I served on a jury. Now I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Jury trials are incredibly cumbersome for everyone involved. Just the process of jury selection is a huge PITA. It's totally worth it as a (constitutionally mandated) form of justice, but wow is it hard to do. And the shorter the trial and the lesser the infraction, the less worth it it is from a systems standpoint.

While I agree with you in theory because it's sort of ridiculous you could go to jail for a year without being entitled to a jury trial, in reality the thought of serving on juries for minor infractions like loitering or public drunkenness is INSANE. I can't even explain to you how much of a waste of time that would feel like for everyone involved. You'd have to impanel a jury (which by itself takes a minus of a couple hours and requires the courts to issue a ton of jury summons just to get enough people available for the juries needed), and call witnesses, which in the case of most misdemeanors is going to wind up just being the arresting officer and maybe one other person (whose time is also valuable -- do you want to go testify in court every time a fight breaks out in front of your business or you witness someone getting on a bus without paying?). The defendant, whose testimony would actually be helpful, probably won't testify because standard practice is to discourage defendants for testifying and they are constitutionally protected from having to do so. Witness testimony will take an hour though, even though you're only hearing from a couple people, because the process of bringing the witnesses in, swearing them in, and going through the often technical aspects of the testimony (like having to ask the arresting officer a specific set of carefully phrased questions in order to formally introduce the arrest report into evidence) is cumbersome as well.

Then the jury has to deliberate. Even if most juries in these cases will just take one vote, they will wind up talking about the case for at least a few minutes.

Point is, even a fairly simple trial for a minor infraction is going to take up most of a full day and will require the efforts of around 20 people, minimum (jury, judge, attorneys, clerks, witnesses, defendant). Plus think of how much time beat cops will wind up having to spend in court for this -- do you really want to be employing police who spend 50-60% of their time testifying in court? Is that their main job?

I don't know what the answer is. Some of these charges are BS (loitering is a ridiculous thing to lock someone up for, and probably shouldn't be a crime at all) and yes, sometimes the punishments don't make sense. But I think the key then is to address the punishments and figure out something more fair and appropriate, including leaning more heavily on probation and community service. I do NOT want to serving on a jury for misdemeanors every other year, and I also don't think the court system can handle the back up this would cause. It would also cause major delays on jury trials for stuff like murder, where actually all the hassle of a trial is worth it because you're talking about justice for the victim and their family and the potential for the defendant to go to prison for many years. Imagine if all murder trials were delayed a couple years because the court system was so busy trying people for not throwing their trash in the trash can.

Combine the sheer laboriousness of jury trials with our ban on cash bail and the fact that most crimes are committed by a small group of recidivists and you have the makings of something really ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate that Charles Allen is trying to rush this through before the House flips to the Republicans. The first vote is on Friday afternoon.

I also feel like the public has zero idea of what is actually in this bill. There is no summary. The hearings have not been well publicized.

Very, very shady.

https://ccrc.dc.gov/page/overview

https://ccrc.dc.gov/page/frequently-asked-questions-8

Three hearings were held last fall with ample public notice as required by statute. Those hearings are linked on the FAQ page above. Just because you haven't been aware of the changes, doesn't mean there hasn't been ample vetting and volumes of information available on the CCRC website.

One last thing . . . for all the folks blaming Allen, this bill comes out of recommendations put forth by the CCRC . . . which put in 4+ years of work into this overhaul. You can read all about it in the links above. You may disagree with the substance, but there is nothing shady about the process.

[Anonymous]

Seems pretty remarkable that even the Biden administration thinks Charles Allen's proposals are crazy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty remarkable that even the Biden administration thinks Charles Allen's proposals are crazy

Well, that might be crazy . . . if it was accurate. For example, AG Garland is on the record that mandatory minimums are costly and ineffective.

“We should do as, as President Biden has suggested, seek the elimination of mandatory minimum. So that we once again give authority to district judges and trial judges to make determinations based on all of the sentencing factors that judges normally apply.” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-garland-hearing-quotes/key-quotes-from-u-s-attorney-general-nominee-garland-on-criminal-justice-policies-idUSKBN2AM2HT

In addition, while the USAO does have some reservations, they support the package. "[T]he D.C. Criminal Code is in dire need of an update, and there is much in this bill that would help. We also recommend that the bill move forward because it is our hope that Councilmembers will continue to listen to our concerns as this bill moves forward—just as they did before introducing today’s version of the bill." - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

[Anonymous]

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?"

Are "violent assaults" misdemeanors ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty remarkable that even the Biden administration thinks Charles Allen's proposals are crazy

Well, that might be crazy . . . if it was accurate. For example, AG Garland is on the record that mandatory minimums are costly and ineffective.

“We should do as, as President Biden has suggested, seek the elimination of mandatory minimum. So that we once again give authority to district judges and trial judges to make determinations based on all of the sentencing factors that judges normally apply.” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-garland-hearing-quotes/key-quotes-from-u-s-attorney-general-nominee-garland-on-criminal-justice-policies-idUSKBN2AM2HT

In addition, while the USAO does have some reservations, they support the package. "[T]he D.C. Criminal Code is in dire need of an update, and there is much in this bill that would help. We also recommend that the bill move forward because it is our hope that Councilmembers will continue to listen to our concerns as this bill moves forward—just as they did before introducing today’s version of the bill." - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

Even though it is USAO supports the package, one should not be disingenuous about the USAO's position.....like yeah, I'm sure the USAO supports overhaul to rid the code of horse and buggy violations, lol.

The point is that the USAO shows serious concerns wrt public safety and the impacts of the changes on the ability to deliver justice. The mandate for trials for basically every crime is going let every criminal off the hook for every crime below murder. I would not label that as just 'some reservations'.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty remarkable that even the Biden administration thinks Charles Allen's proposals are crazy

Well, that might be crazy . . . if it was accurate. For example, AG Garland is on the record that mandatory minimums are costly and ineffective.

“We should do as, as President Biden has suggested, seek the elimination of mandatory minimum. So that we once again give authority to district judges and trial judges to make determinations based on all of the sentencing factors that judges normally apply.” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-garland-hearing-quotes/key-quotes-from-u-s-attorney-general-nominee-garland-on-criminal-justice-policies-idUSKBN2AM2HT

In addition, while the USAO does have some reservations, they support the package. "[T]he D.C. Criminal Code is in dire need of an update, and there is much in this bill that would help. We also recommend that the bill move forward because it is our hope that Councilmembers will continue to listen to our concerns as this bill moves forward—just as they did before introducing today’s version of the bill." - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

Even though it is USAO supports the package, one should not be disingenuous about the USAO's position.....like yeah, I'm sure the USAO supports overhaul to rid the code of horse and buggy violations, lol.

The point is that the USAO shows serious concerns wrt public safety and the impacts of the changes on the ability to deliver justice. The mandate for trials for basically every crime is going let every criminal off the hook for every crime below murder. I would not label that as just 'some reservations'.

What "mandate for trials" are you referring to ????

Defendants can still plead guilty, have a bench trial (no jury), or accept a plea deal.

Granting defendants the right to a trial by jury will most likely result in more plea deals being offered by the prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty remarkable that even the Biden administration thinks Charles Allen's proposals are crazy

Well, that might be crazy . . . if it was accurate. For example, AG Garland is on the record that mandatory minimums are costly and ineffective.

“We should do as, as President Biden has suggested, seek the elimination of mandatory minimum. So that we once again give authority to district judges and trial judges to make determinations based on all of the sentencing factors that judges normally apply.” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-garland-hearing-quotes/key-quotes-from-u-s-attorney-general-nominee-garland-on-criminal-justice-policies-idUSKBN2AM2HT

In addition, while the USAO does have some reservations, they support the package. "[T]he D.C. Criminal Code is in dire need of an update, and there is much in this bill that would help. We also recommend that the bill move forward because it is our hope that Councilmembers will continue to listen to our concerns as this bill moves forward—just as they did before introducing today’s version of the bill." - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

Even though it is USAO supports the package, one should not be disingenuous about the USAO's position.....like yeah, I'm sure the USAO supports overhaul to rid the code of horse and buggy violations, lol.

The point is that the USAO shows serious concerns wrt public safety and the impacts of the changes on the ability to deliver justice. The mandate for trials for basically every crime is going let every criminal off the hook for every crime below murder. I would not label that as just 'some reservations'.

The USAO was an active participant for years as a member of the CCRC steering committee. They voted on the final set of recommendations, understanding that there were issues in the final report with which they disagreed. As the recommendations moved into the legislative process, they pushed back on some of the outstanding issues with which they had concerns and many were adopted by the Council prior to the bill introduction. That's how it is supposed to work.

If this package was as "ghastly" as some people have said, there is no way the USAO would have issued that statement. Prosecutors don't have a record of sitting by quietly when there is a policy put in place with which they disagree.

[Anonymous]

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.

So the only possible alternative is simply not to prosecute or enforce those laws?

Clearly, you do not understand the criminal justice system. There are several alternatives. Plea deals; bench trial; defendant can just plead guilty; alternative sentencing that may or may not include jail time (weekend in jail so defendant can continue to work; community service; monetary fines; probation; and some accused of crimes may not be guilty/have a legal defense.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

Because people who commit crime know ahead of time that the justice system will be completely overwhelmed with trials. Anyone caught committing crime will just demand a trial and get released because the trial won't occur until 2-3 years from now. In all likelihood, the charges will even be dropped because of a backlog in the courts. In essence, there will be no punishment for crime, so watch thefts, property damage, stealing, etc. skyrocket.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think the original poster picked the wrong item in the bill as an example of 'ghastly'.
You can request a jury trial for speeding tickets, you can certainly have them for something that involves jail time.