Anonymous wrote:I am very responsive to some of the arguments made on this thread about the ways that Racine's approach to crime, and the general progressive insistence on "addressing root causes" instead of prosecuting, have contributed to an increase in crime rates, especially among juveniles. I'm in -- I agree that what we have been doing is NOT working.

But (and I get how naive this makes me sound -- I am naive! that's why I'm asking here) I just watched We Own This City and I also found the argument in that show that the war on drugs and the criminal justice system is essentially designed to lock up young black men, destroying black families and communities in the process. You can't ignore that history and how it got us to the point we are in now.

So I find myself at a loss. How do we reject the "school to prison pipeline" that relies on aggressive prosecution of juvenile crime in order to effectively lock poor black men into extremely limited options before they even hit 18, while also actually addressing crime and recidivism in the city so that it's a safer and better place to live for all citizens, including black men and women and children?

I agree that "violence interruptors" are not the answer (lol Charles Allen, please) but I also don't think locking up all these kids is the answer either. I was on another thread talking about how I think school closures had a real negative impact, and following that logic, I think increased programming and engagement for kids in the city starting from a young age is part of the solution. I recently heard about a program in I think Philadelphia where local high schools started staying open until midnight and providing a place for kids to come play, study, hang out, etc. with the caveat that of course drugs, alcohol, and weapons were not allowed and screened for. And it offered a real benefit -- a place for kids who don't always have safe homes or neighborhoods to go every day, where they could spend time with friends and just be kids, but where drugs and guns could be kept out. I'm sure it wasn't perfect but it was something.

That doesn't mean I don't think these crimes should be prosecuted. They should. But there's got to be an option between locking up a generation of young black men and simply not prosecuting them at all. There do need to be consequences for actions, but also those consequences can't simply be effectively ending these kids' chances of ever being a functional, contributing member of society, by getting them in the system early and destroying future chances of regular employment and a functional relationship with their community.

isten. Listen to me.

I don’t give a flying fk about the minutea of prosecutions in dc. Forest for the trees. Point is that we have a liberal da who is replacing a liberal da and we now have a more liberal city council who loooove these progressive criminal justice reform policies that obviously exacerbate crime. It’s this entire “we just need to keep looking and searching and desperately finding the “root cause” of crime to stop it . If we keep making it easier to commit crimes by not prosecuting things like shoplifting or teens who car jack, we will somehow ensure they go on to grow up out of prison and productive future citizens whose lives weren’t destroyed by jail. Really that’s the progressive approach we’re seeing and is what the city doubled down on with these recent elections. Less police. More restorative justice that doesn’t dissuade anything.

It’s like we’re trying to hard to rewrite history. Trying to keep pounding on a nail that just won’t get drilled correctly with these novel soft on crime approaches.

Through history the best deterrence to rising crime and misbehavior is swift and strong justice. I’m sorry, but we’re going in the wrong direction. Now we get to see more crime happen because everyone is too scared to offend anyone and take violent criminals off the street whoever they may be.

Anonymous wrote:Can we run a home-grown Independent in Ward 1 in November? Why do we need to be tied up by the 2-party system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

Dude, you need to chill. I don't call it the federal da either. I only called it that in response to the idiot talking about the "new da" being soft on crime. I know what the hell the USAO is. I've been practicing law here for twice as long as you and no doubt have been three times more successful.

Listen. Listen to me.

I don’t give a flying fk about the minutea of prosecutions in dc. Forest for the trees. Point is that we have a liberal da who is replacing a liberal da and we now have a more liberal city council who loooove these progressive criminal justice reform policies that obviously exacerbate crime. It’s this entire “we just need to keep looking and searching and desperately finding the “root cause” of crime to stop it . If we keep making it easier to commit crimes by not prosecuting things like shoplifting or teens who car jack, we will somehow ensure they go on to grow up out of prison and productive future citizens whose lives weren’t destroyed by jail. Really that’s the progressive approach we’re seeing and is what the city doubled down on with these recent elections. Less police. More restorative justice that doesn’t dissuade anything.

It’s like we’re trying to hard to rewrite history. Trying to keep pounding on a nail that just won’t get drilled correctly with these novel soft on crime approaches.

Through history the best deterrence to rising crime and misbehavior is swift and strong justice. I’m sorry, but we’re going in the wrong direction. Now we get to see more crime happen because everyone is too scared to offend anyone and take violent criminals off the street whoever they may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

Dude, you need to chill. I don't call it the federal da either. I only called it that in response to the idiot talking about the "new da" being soft on crime. I know what the hell the USAO is. I've been practicing law here for twice as long as you and no doubt have been three times more successful.

Listen. Listen to me.

I don’t give a flying fk about the minutea of prosecutions in dc. Forest for the trees. Point is that we have a liberal da who is replacing a liberal da and we now have a more liberal city council who loooove these progressive criminal justice reform policies that obviously exacerbate crime. It’s this entire “we just need to keep looking and searching and desperately finding the “root cause” of crime to stop it . If we keep making it easier to commit crimes by not prosecuting things like shoplifting or teens who car jack, we will somehow ensure they go on to grow up out of prison and productive future citizens whose lives weren’t destroyed by jail. Really that’s the progressive approach we’re seeing and is what the city doubled down on with these recent elections. Less police. More restorative justice that doesn’t dissuade anything.

It’s like we’re trying to hard to rewrite history. Trying to keep pounding on a nail that just won’t get drilled correctly with these novel soft on crime approaches.

Through history the best deterrence to rising crime and misbehavior is swift and strong justice. I’m sorry, but we’re going in the wrong direction. Now we get to see more crime happen because everyone is too scared to offend anyone and take violent criminals off the street whoever they may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

Dude, you need to chill. I don't call it the federal da either. I only called it that in response to the idiot talking about the "new da" being soft on crime. I know what the hell the USAO is. I've been practicing law here for twice as long as you and no doubt have been three times more successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new DC council should also reconsider the use of the word "crime." It's such a loaded term. Given the immense power imbalance across the city, is it really fair to label certain behaviors to be "criminal?" For example, if a marginalized person in need takes someone else's property, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "restorative appropriation" rather than stealing?

I keep re-reading this and I can't tell if you're being serious.

San Francisco leads the way, where stealing less than $950 is already effectively decriminalized. That's true restorative justice our new DC council could implement immediately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe people are watching the news and see what criminals the GOP are. Hard to run as being tough in crime when your party is the party of gun lovers and insurrectionists.

There's got to be some middle ground between wokeism and fascism, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

Dude, you need to chill. I don't call it the federal da either. I only called it that in response to the idiot talking about the "new da" being soft on crime. I know what the hell the USAO is. I've been practicing law here for twice as long as you and no doubt have been three times more successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.

Um, I'm using shorthand. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia IS the "federal district attorney's office." I have about 100 friends who work there.

I'll tell you who ISN'T the federal district attorney's office: Karl Racine's old office.

Yes, that office prosecutes juvenile crimes.

Lol, I’m a NP who has worked in DC as a lawyer for 15 years and not a single soul (including your “100 friends”) calls it the federal DAs office, it’s referred to as USAO. The handling of juvenile crime is extremely important in DC. These carjackings and robberies that are constantly being talked about? Most of them are being committed by actual juveniles, or people between 18-25 with prior contact with the juvenile justice system. What the teens of DC have learned during Karl Racine’s tenure as AG is that just about anything they do while they are under 18 will be treated with a slap on the wrist. In fact they routinely brag after being arrested that “I’ll be out tomorrow”. Ask me how I know.