DC Council Overrides Bowser Veto of Revised Criminal Code

[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.

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.

No proposals yet. But the most likely outcome is that this additional burden they are putting on the AUSA and judiciary would result in the Feds themselves demanding more resources to manage the case load.

In consideration of the reduced penalties and without additional resources, the natural reaction from the AUSA will be to over charge to force plea agreements that will not result in any appreciable decrease in prison time. I’m not sure that these folks on the Council have thought this through. Incentives for the DC AG are completely different than for an AUSA. No AUSA will want to have a career reputation for being soft on crime.

[Anonymous]

The worst crime proponents of the law have probably been victims of is having their cargo e-bike stolen.

It wasn’t that long ago that everyone in DC had either been mugged or had a close friend or relative that had been mugged.

I guess it will need to get back to that situation, when crime hits home. It’s narcissism.

[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?

Nope. Any member can add disapproval of the new law as a rider to larger Congressional bill, and if the larger bill passes, this law does not go into effect. It's why DC doesn't have fully legalized weed, because one member of Congress (Andy Harris) attached the prohibition of it to a spending bill in 2015 and it gets added over and over again every year. House dems tried to strip it out after Biden took over but it got re-attached by the Senate.

A big part of the bill is that all misdemeanors can receive jury trials, which will require a massive expansion of the DC court system, costing millions of dollars. All one member of Congress has to do is insert a rider to another spending bill saying no federal money can be used for this expansion, and the new crime law will be DOA.

This will not be a heavy lift for Congressional Republicans.

[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.

This should result in more plea deals. Helps to even out the bargaining power between defendants and prosecutors.

This effectively decriminalizes anything that's not a serious felony. So expect the random shoplifting, phone snatching and vandalism to go off the charts.

[Anonymous]

How ironic. A city full of nothing but useless lawyers and it has become totally lawless. Glad I live in the suburbs lol

[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?

The new floor rules allow for amendment free for alls and this is the kind of easy political red meat that congress lives for

[Anonymous]

Do people really support mitigating penalties for car jackers?

[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?

Nope. Any member can add disapproval of the new law as a rider to larger Congressional bill, and if the larger bill passes, this law does not go into effect. It's why DC doesn't have fully legalized weed, because one member of Congress (Andy Harris) attached the prohibition of it to a spending bill in 2015 and it gets added over and over again every year. House dems tried to strip it out after Biden took over but it got re-attached by the Senate.

A big part of the bill is that all misdemeanors can receive jury trials, which will require a massive expansion of the DC court system, costing millions of dollars. All one member of Congress has to do is insert a rider to another spending bill saying no federal money can be used for this expansion, and the new crime law will be DOA.

This will not be a heavy lift for Congressional Republicans.

With the current House GOP, passing any appropriations bill may actually be a heavy lift, though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people really support mitigating penalties for car jackers?

Only self-flagellating left-wing crazies like Charles Allen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them in DC.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, what the hell is Council thinking?

Here's a proposal to fine drivers who make excessive noise. They aren't even going after speeders, fake paper tags, and people who run red lights.

https://twitter.com/cmbrookepinto/status/1615720265245147137

They need to fix the enforcement problem first, before enacting new laws.

[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.

You think criminal defense attorneys who handle misdemeanors are rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what the hell is Council thinking?

Here's a proposal to fine drivers who make excessive noise. They aren't even going after speeders, fake paper tags, and people who run red lights.

https://twitter.com/cmbrookepinto/status/1615720265245147137

They need to fix the enforcement problem first, before enacting new laws.

It’s a sure sign of incompetence that they keep creating new laws and new entitlements all the while not caring how those laws are enforced or if their new entitlements are implemented effectively.

[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.

That would be the only good thing they do !!! I'll take it !!!

[Anonymous]

Our Council sucks. They are an embarrassment who do not reflect the will of the people.So much for home rule.

[Anonymous]

Carjacking has already been effectively decriminalized in DC so I don’t see how this law makes a difference. Might as well just make it a civil penalty at this point, like a parking ticket.