Crime on the hill - Charles Allen has got to go

[Anonymous]

The guy who broke into our neighbor's home in DC had been arrested 6 times before, once for armed robbery. WTH. Diferent guy who broke into our home had been rearrested 5 times. Like the prosecutors didn't think they would do it again? Seems like a no brainer. But innocent people have to deal with the effects of their short-sightedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god, everyone (at least in recent pages of this thread) needs to read up on how criminal justice actually works in DC. Karl Racine doesn't have any prosecutors (except in the loosest sense related to juvenile crimes). The federal government, specifically the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, is responsible for prosecuting all felonies (i.e., crimes punishable by more than one year in jail) in D.C. Our prosecutor-in-chief is the U.S. Attorney, a man named Matthew Graves. The disconnect between the police and the prosecutors, unique in our country, is a problem, but it's hardly one you can blame Bowser or Contee for when it was imposed on us by Congress.

The vast majority of the violent crimes being discussed in this thread (armed carjackings and robberies, gun cases) have been committed by teens, and those cases are “prosecuted” by Karl Racine’s office. This is why the mayor and Contee specifically targeted Racine. Additionally, even those cases where the perps are a little older, chances are they were juvenile delinquents previously “prosecuted” by Racine’s office but yet still roaming the streets committing crimes. Some of us know how the criminal justice system here in DC works, but thanks for the helpful tips.

And Racine’s response to Bowser is quite interesting in pointing out her penchant for finger pointing and buck passing instead of leadership. I’ve honestly never heard of a situation anywhere else where the mayor has been out there like this. Not saying that criticism of Allen, the council and Racine is unfair. However, first glass houses and all that. Second, the mayor should have a higher sense leadership no? Not even trying to use convening power to bring all actors together to coordinate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god, everyone (at least in recent pages of this thread) needs to read up on how criminal justice actually works in DC. Karl Racine doesn't have any prosecutors (except in the loosest sense related to juvenile crimes). The federal government, specifically the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, is responsible for prosecuting all felonies (i.e., crimes punishable by more than one year in jail) in D.C. Our prosecutor-in-chief is the U.S. Attorney, a man named Matthew Graves. The disconnect between the police and the prosecutors, unique in our country, is a problem, but it's hardly one you can blame Bowser or Contee for when it was imposed on us by Congress.

The vast majority of the violent crimes being discussed in this thread (armed carjackings and robberies, gun cases) have been committed by teens, and those cases are “prosecuted” by Karl Racine’s office. This is why the mayor and Contee specifically targeted Racine. Additionally, even those cases where the perps are a little older, chances are they were juvenile delinquents previously “prosecuted” by Racine’s office but yet still roaming the streets committing crimes. Some of us know how the criminal justice system here in DC works, but thanks for the helpful tips.

And Racine’s response to Bowser is quite interesting in pointing out her penchant for finger pointing and buck passing instead of leadership. I’ve honestly never heard of a situation anywhere else where the mayor has been out there like this. Not saying that criticism of Allen, the council and Racine is unfair. However, first glass houses and all that. Second, the mayor should have a higher sense leadership no? Not even trying to use convening power to bring all actors together to coordinate.

Karl Racine: "My office prosecutes all violent crimes committed by juveniles where we have strong evidence, as the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the arrest is constitutional."

Also Karl Racine: "No, I will not release statistics showing how many juveniles actually are prosecuted, even with names redacted. And no, I will not release statistics showing how many of these juveniles had previous arrests."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god, everyone (at least in recent pages of this thread) needs to read up on how criminal justice actually works in DC. Karl Racine doesn't have any prosecutors (except in the loosest sense related to juvenile crimes). The federal government, specifically the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, is responsible for prosecuting all felonies (i.e., crimes punishable by more than one year in jail) in D.C. Our prosecutor-in-chief is the U.S. Attorney, a man named Matthew Graves. The disconnect between the police and the prosecutors, unique in our country, is a problem, but it's hardly one you can blame Bowser or Contee for when it was imposed on us by Congress.

The vast majority of the violent crimes being discussed in this thread (armed carjackings and robberies, gun cases) have been committed by teens, and those cases are “prosecuted” by Karl Racine’s office. This is why the mayor and Contee specifically targeted Racine. Additionally, even those cases where the perps are a little older, chances are they were juvenile delinquents previously “prosecuted” by Racine’s office but yet still roaming the streets committing crimes. Some of us know how the criminal justice system here in DC works, but thanks for the helpful tips.

And Racine’s response to Bowser is quite interesting in pointing out her penchant for finger pointing and buck passing instead of leadership. I’ve honestly never heard of a situation anywhere else where the mayor has been out there like this. Not saying that criticism of Allen, the council and Racine is unfair. However, first glass houses and all that. Second, the mayor should have a higher sense leadership no? Not even trying to use convening power to bring all actors together to coordinate.

Karl Racine: "My office prosecutes all violent crimes committed by juveniles where we have strong evidence, as the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the arrest is constitutional."

Also Karl Racine: "No, I will not release statistics showing how many juveniles actually are prosecuted, even with names redacted. And no, I will not release statistics showing how many of these juveniles had previous arrests."

Also Karl Racine: we prosecute violent crimes, but will not define prosecute.
Sure, they are charging kids, but part of what the Mayor and Contee were getting at was what happens after you charge them? What are the pleas being taken (ie is a kid that carjacks someone pleading to misdemeanors), are violent offenders being released back into the community as part of their plea, are you treating repeat offenders differently than a kid with no priors. Racine will not answer these questions because he doesn’t want the public to know, in this midst of this spike in juvenile crime, that his office is offering misdemeanor pleas and other slaps on the wrist to kids who are violent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god, everyone (at least in recent pages of this thread) needs to read up on how criminal justice actually works in DC. Karl Racine doesn't have any prosecutors (except in the loosest sense related to juvenile crimes). The federal government, specifically the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, is responsible for prosecuting all felonies (i.e., crimes punishable by more than one year in jail) in D.C. Our prosecutor-in-chief is the U.S. Attorney, a man named Matthew Graves. The disconnect between the police and the prosecutors, unique in our country, is a problem, but it's hardly one you can blame Bowser or Contee for when it was imposed on us by Congress.

The vast majority of the violent crimes being discussed in this thread (armed carjackings and robberies, gun cases) have been committed by teens, and those cases are “prosecuted” by Karl Racine’s office. This is why the mayor and Contee specifically targeted Racine. Additionally, even those cases where the perps are a little older, chances are they were juvenile delinquents previously “prosecuted” by Racine’s office but yet still roaming the streets committing crimes. Some of us know how the criminal justice system here in DC works, but thanks for the helpful tips.

And Racine’s response to Bowser is quite interesting in pointing out her penchant for finger pointing and buck passing instead of leadership. I’ve honestly never heard of a situation anywhere else where the mayor has been out there like this. Not saying that criticism of Allen, the council and Racine is unfair. However, first glass houses and all that. Second, the mayor should have a higher sense leadership no? Not even trying to use convening power to bring all actors together to coordinate.

Karl Racine: "My office prosecutes all violent crimes committed by juveniles where we have strong evidence, as the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the arrest is constitutional."

Also Karl Racine: "No, I will not release statistics showing how many juveniles actually are prosecuted, even with names redacted. And no, I will not release statistics showing how many of these juveniles had previous arrests."

Also Karl Racine: we prosecute violent crimes, but will not define prosecute.
Sure, they are charging kids, but part of what the Mayor and Contee were getting at was what happens after you charge them? What are the pleas being taken (ie is a kid that carjacks someone pleading to misdemeanors), are violent offenders being released back into the community as part of their plea, are you treating repeat offenders differently than a kid with no priors. Racine will not answer these questions because he doesn’t want the public to know, in this midst of this spike in juvenile crime, that his office is offering misdemeanor pleas and other slaps on the wrist to kids who are violent.

In sum, let’s continue to subsidize the ultra poor in wealthy, gentrifying neighborhoods in the center of the city for generations of the same family, all while it’s clear that these places are where crime originates, all while the city and prosecutors are lowering bar for committing crimes and enabling lax on crime legislation because of equity or to make the arrest stats look better or whatever you want to call it, thus putting innocent citizens at risk. So it’s a “let’s just pass the risk on to tax payers” situation. Why don’t we at least for violent crime and not so much drugs, just crack down on crime, let police arrest, let courts prosecute and if people can’t afford the city they just move like everyone else? If they move out crime goes down. But no. We’re going to self flagellate like California is doing and allow shoplifting and crime to rise and cities will get worse. Ugh. social justice until it hurts right?

[Anonymous]

You people claiming there is a “crime problem” or blaming Allen are just making it up, or possibly you are part of the right wing media.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10460307/Psaki-mocks-concern-consequences-soft-crime.html

[Anonymous]

Allen's quote in today's Post about the dreadful fentanyl deaths in SW "people would care if this were white teens in VA". Does he just make this stuff up? Why does he have to always have an angle? Last I heard DC has gone to great efforts to have opioid blockers widely available to citizens and police. What's his definition of "care"? It would be so great if he could bring attention to an issue and propose further solutions without throwaway whining.

[Anonymous]

In sum, let’s continue to subsidize the ultra poor in wealthy, gentrifying neighborhoods in the center of the city for generations of the same family, all while it’s clear that these places are where crime originates, all while the city and prosecutors are lowering bar for committing crimes and enabling lax on crime legislation because of equity or to make the arrest stats look better or whatever you want to call it, thus putting innocent citizens at risk. So it’s a “let’s just pass the risk on to tax payers” situation. Why don’t we at least for violent crime and not so much drugs, just crack down on crime, let police arrest, let courts prosecute and if people can’t afford the city they just move like everyone else? If they move out crime goes down. But no. We’re going to self flagellate like California is doing and allow shoplifting and crime to rise and cities will get worse. Ugh. social justice until it hurts right?

Acccurately and succinctly put. DC's housing and tenant advocates believe that families are entitled to be subsidized in perpetuity in the neighborhoods in which they wish to live. DC's criminal justice system coddles juvenile offenders until they age out of the juvenile sentencing world (currently 22, soon to be 26 under Allen et al.), whereupon the now adult offenders find themselves facing significant jail time for violent crimes, whereas if they had actually been held truly accountable at a younger age, maybe they wouldn't have landed there. Nothing about DC's poverty policies---which have been the same model for decades (the current youth sentencing laws started under Marion Barry)---actually help move the needle on poverty or crime, and do a lot to reinforce both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god, everyone (at least in recent pages of this thread) needs to read up on how criminal justice actually works in DC. Karl Racine doesn't have any prosecutors (except in the loosest sense related to juvenile crimes). The federal government, specifically the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, is responsible for prosecuting all felonies (i.e., crimes punishable by more than one year in jail) in D.C. Our prosecutor-in-chief is the U.S. Attorney, a man named Matthew Graves. The disconnect between the police and the prosecutors, unique in our country, is a problem, but it's hardly one you can blame Bowser or Contee for when it was imposed on us by Congress.

The vast majority of the violent crimes being discussed in this thread (armed carjackings and robberies, gun cases) have been committed by teens, and those cases are “prosecuted” by Karl Racine’s office. This is why the mayor and Contee specifically targeted Racine. Additionally, even those cases where the perps are a little older, chances are they were juvenile delinquents previously “prosecuted” by Racine’s office but yet still roaming the streets committing crimes. Some of us know how the criminal justice system here in DC works, but thanks for the helpful tips.

And Racine’s response to Bowser is quite interesting in pointing out her penchant for finger pointing and buck passing instead of leadership. I’ve honestly never heard of a situation anywhere else where the mayor has been out there like this. Not saying that criticism of Allen, the council and Racine is unfair. However, first glass houses and all that. Second, the mayor should have a higher sense leadership no? Not even trying to use convening power to bring all actors together to coordinate.

Karl Racine: "My office prosecutes all violent crimes committed by juveniles where we have strong evidence, as the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the arrest is constitutional."

Also Karl Racine: "No, I will not release statistics showing how many juveniles actually are prosecuted, even with names redacted. And no, I will not release statistics showing how many of these juveniles had previous arrests."

Also Karl Racine: we prosecute violent crimes, but will not define prosecute.
Sure, they are charging kids, but part of what the Mayor and Contee were getting at was what happens after you charge them? What are the pleas being taken (ie is a kid that carjacks someone pleading to misdemeanors), are violent offenders being released back into the community as part of their plea, are you treating repeat offenders differently than a kid with no priors. Racine will not answer these questions because he doesn’t want the public to know, in this midst of this spike in juvenile crime, that his office is offering misdemeanor pleas and other slaps on the wrist to kids who are violent.

What are we getting in exchange for the plea deals?
I feel we need to get something in exchange.

Like:

- No recidivism. If we give a plea deal this time, any plea deal is automatically off the table the next time they get arrested.

- They must give someone else up, of high value, and it must lead to an arrest, conviction and sentencing or the deal is revoked and they go back to prison. Like if it was a carjacking, they need to finger the chop shop. If it was a burglary, they need to finger their fence. And that deal is also only good once. If they get out and commit another carjacking or burglary, they need to give more high value people up.

Otherwise, why give any plea deal at all?

[Anonymous]

- if they used a gun in the crime, they need to give up the person who they got the gun from and it needs to result in taking more guns out of the hands of other criminals.

[Anonymous]

Neither of the prior posters seem to understand the "no snitching" culture that prevails in high poverty urban areas. If you want to understand how urban AA have historically been underserved with respect to justice (while being "over served" with respect to policing), read "Ghettoside". It's about LA but could just as easily be about DC. It does a good, and fairly apolitical, job of identifying the historical patterns that have led to low level criminals and community witnesses being unwilling to testify against the top predators in their communities. When you do not believe that the police will protect you from being murdered, then your appetite for cooperation plummets.

But that is a separate issue from overly generous plea deals and insufficient consequences for juvenile violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither of the prior posters seem to understand the "no snitching" culture that prevails in high poverty urban areas. If you want to understand how urban AA have historically been underserved with respect to justice (while being "over served" with respect to policing), read "Ghettoside". It's about LA but could just as easily be about DC. It does a good, and fairly apolitical, job of identifying the historical patterns that have led to low level criminals and community witnesses being unwilling to testify against the top predators in their communities. When you do not believe that the police will protect you from being murdered, then your appetite for cooperation plummets.

But that is a separate issue from overly generous plea deals and insufficient consequences for juvenile violent crime.

No, I totally understand that's the culture. But prosecutors also need to set a tone and culture of "you get nothing if you give nothing" for plea bargains. Fine if they don't want to snitch. The consequence of that is that after that first leniency deal or two that they get, for ever after they should bear the full brunt of prosecution and sentencing with no leniency and no deals on the table unless they either give someone up or completely commit to a completely different path in life on the right side of the law.

[Anonymous]

Prosecutors also need to set a tone with juveniles of "if you're a repeat offender or a violent offender we no longer treat you as a juvenile."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors also need to set a tone with juveniles of "if you're a repeat offender or a violent offender we no longer treat you as a juvenile."

And yet Karl Racine is trying to do the exact opposite by seeking change the law in order to prevent USAO from being the decision maker on when a kid gets charged as an adult for one of the qualifying crimes. He wants it to be that the case starts in juvenile court whenever the perp is under 18 (even first degree murder) and then his office decides whether to ask the judge to move the case to adult court. He’s doing this knowing full well his office never intends to ask for a case to be transferred to adult court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither of the prior posters seem to understand the "no snitching" culture that prevails in high poverty urban areas. If you want to understand how urban AA have historically been underserved with respect to justice (while being "over served" with respect to policing), read "Ghettoside". It's about LA but could just as easily be about DC. It does a good, and fairly apolitical, job of identifying the historical patterns that have led to low level criminals and community witnesses being unwilling to testify against the top predators in their communities. When you do not believe that the police will protect you from being murdered, then your appetite for cooperation plummets.

But that is a separate issue from overly generous plea deals and insufficient consequences for juvenile violent crime.

The truth is that only bad things happens if you get on the police’s radar. If you go to cooperate as a witness, they may try to bust you for something else. Since a lot of people end up with ticky tack stuff on their record, like unpaid tickets or failure to appear for jury duty or some minor technicality they may not even know about, putting yourself forward to police can also put yourself in jeopardy. They may use your name when interrogating suspects for unrelated crimes, intentionally or by accident. They may threaten to tell people you are a snitch in order to get you to make statements that were not true so they can secure a conviction. They may regularly show up at your house unannounced. Etc.