DC criminal code overhaul is ghastly

[Anonymous]

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.

Much, much higher penalties for drivers who speed; much, much lower penalties for people who commit violent crimes. That's their formula.

[Anonymous]

I wish for the return of the control board. When the control board and Tony Williams took the reins in the mid 1990s, the city started to improve significantly. The entire lot of DC Government---Mayor and Council---need to get their wings clipped and have some rational adults run the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish for the return of the control board. When the control board and Tony Williams took the reins in the mid 1990s, the city started to improve significantly. The entire lot of DC Government---Mayor and Council---need to get their wings clipped and have some rational adults run the city.

+1

[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.

Well the state of Florida has been far more progressive than DC when it comes to jury trials. For more than fifty-years, Florida has allowed a defendant facing more than sixty-days in the county jail there right to trial by jury. DC is so freaking behind

[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.

Actually it is.

[Anonymous]

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.

Allen, Silverman and others are siding with criminals over crime victims and everyone else.

[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.

Think you get called for jury duty now? Just wait if Allen's proposal goes thru. Everyone will constantly be called for jury duty.

[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.

Imagine you or your loved one not receiving a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now facing a judge known in the community as the hanging judge. He has never met a defendant that wasn’t guilty. Prosecutors love him because they know if defendant does not take a plea, it is an automatic guilty verdict before the judge. Defense attorneys despise him because they have to talk their client into taking a plea when they know their client has a good defense, but will be found guilty by this one judge. Oh the horror to waste someone’s time to find a jury who would actually listen and consider the facts.

[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.

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.

Imagine you or your loved one not receiving a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now facing a judge known in the community as the hanging judge. He has never met a defendant that wasn’t guilty. Prosecutors love him because they know if defendant does not take a plea, it is an automatic guilty verdict before the judge. Defense attorneys despise him because they have to talk their client into taking a plea when they know their client has a good defense, but will be found guilty by this one judge. Oh the horror to waste someone’s time to find a jury who would actually listen and consider the facts.

Spare me. This is D.C. Crime is out of control and no one gets arrested or prosecuted for anything. People like Allen are almost parodies of soft-on-crime Democrats.

[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.

And yet, almost every state in the union offers a trial by jury for penalties over sixty-days. DC has been an outlier for decades because DC’s criminal justice system was and is run primarily by the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor and the chief of police have big problems with Allen's proposals:

https://dcist.com/story/22/10/25/bowser-objects-portions-criminal-code-overhaul/

A handful of objections to a 231-page rewrite around which the Mayor and Chief said "there was “consensus” around 95% of the rewrite of the code" is hardly "big problems" with the code.

And, to be clear, these are not "Allen's proposals." This is the work product of the CCRC and, in fact, Allen and his Council colleagues have walked back a number of recommended changes in response to objections by the USAO and others.

That’s the game though, right? Allen proposes 200 pages of criminal-friendly “reform,” the adults triage the most egregious affronts (harder to prove sexual assault, burglary is only burglary if the resident is aware), Allen “compromises” on those, and you still end up with 197 pages of unfunded changes to the criminal justice system designed to benefit criminals.

[Anonymous]

Crime is so bad right now and people are begging begging the city government to do something about it, and here's Charles Allen coming along with a proposal to basically decriminalize everything short of murder. It's exactly the opposite of what people want. Our government is so out of touch.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

+1

[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.

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.

Imagine you or your loved one not receiving a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now facing a judge known in the community as the hanging judge. He has never met a defendant that wasn’t guilty. Prosecutors love him because they know if defendant does not take a plea, it is an automatic guilty verdict before the judge. Defense attorneys despise him because they have to talk their client into taking a plea when they know their client has a good defense, but will be found guilty by this one judge. Oh the horror to waste someone’s time to find a jury who would actually listen and consider the facts.

Spare me. This is D.C. Crime is out of control and no one gets arrested or prosecuted for anything. People like Allen are almost parodies of soft-on-crime Democrats.

That’s bullshit and if you actually set on a jury recently, you know your statement is a blatant lie. Unfortunately for me, I have been called for both grand jury and petit jury within the last eighteen months. Grand jurors raise their hands to indict on everything DOJ put before them. The jurors didn’t even think about it. On the petit jury I sat on there was at least discussion back and forth before we made a decision to convict. So I call bullshit and lies on your statement previous poster.