Prosecutors are afraid of criminal justice reform
Los Angeles’s new DA is “rocking the boat,” but these are the waves of change we were looking for
Baylynne Brunetti /Asst. Opinion Editor
In the November 2020 election, Los Angeles county voted to oust its previous District Attorney, Jackie Lacie. She had been criticized for being pro-cop and not working to fix the issues within the criminal justice system. Notably, her response to Black Lives Matter protests, which resulted in her husband pulling a gun on protestors who were in front of her home, did not appease voters. Enter George Gascón, who ran on the promise to begin the process of criminal justice reform.
In his first months in office, Gascón has followed through on his promise of reform and is receiving substantial backlash for it. This backlash is due to the fact that prosecutors and other DAs do not want to participate in criminal justice reform. These prosecutors are clearly saying that they are fine with the way the system is — a system that perpetuates institutional racism and seeks to lock up individuals for life for crimes that do not correlate with a life sentence. Gascón took an early step to start to shift the system and prosecutors are already digging their feet in the dirt. If they cannot be on board with these changes this early on, I do not imagine there will be any substantial change.
On Monday, Feb. 8, Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant issued his ruling on the legal filing by the L.A. Association of Deputy District Attorneys to strike down Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón’s reform directives. Under these new directives, the DA instructed ADAs (Assistant District Attorneys) to no longer use sentencing enhancements. Sentencing enhancements are factors that can contribute to someone being sentenced to prison for a longer time. Some examples include the California STEP Act, which can lengthen a sentence if a defendant is found to be a part of a gang, and the Three Strikes Law, where a defendant can gain a “strike prior” or a serious felony offense under the California Penal Code, sections 667.5 (c) and 1192.7 (c). If a defendant receives one strike, sentencing is at the discretion of the judge overseeing the case. If a defendant is found guilty of a second strike, he or she must serve at least 80% of what the sentencing guidelines demand of that offense. If there is a third strike for any felony offense, regardless of magnitude, a sentence of 25 years to life must be imposed. Additionally, there is the 10-20-life enhancement, which drastically lengthens sentences if a gun is involved, even if the defendant never held or fired the gun and didn’t commit the crime but just was present at the crime. The ADAs of Los Angeles had a major problem being told to no longer pursue these sentencing enhancements and thus, brought this injunction before Judge Chalfant. These prosecutors cited that Gascón’s reform trampled on their rights as prosecutors and helped criminals. This dialogue that criminal justice reform is to “help criminals” or is disrespectful to victims of crime is wrong and dangerous and seriously misleads people to believe the system is working. Judge Chalfant ended up ruling that retroactively, Gascón cannot limit sentencing enhancements. However, for new cases, Gascón has the authority to direct his ADAs to not use these enhancements.
Gascón’s push for reform has not just caused a rift with his own ADAs, but other District Attorneys as well. In a motion filed in the first week of January, San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan asked a judge to give her office control over five robbery counts filed against Rhett Nelson, 31, who is being prosecuted for his alleged role in a crime spree across Southern California. Nelson was charged with two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder and seven counts of robberies committed in or near San Diego, Long Beach, and Los Angeles.
Under L.A.’s previous DA, further sentencing enhancements were put in place to ensure he would spend life in prison without the possibility of parole. Due to Gascón’s decision to end sentencing enhancements, this caused DA Stephan to file a motion to have the case brought back to San Diego. After pushback from this case, Gascón reversed and said he will allow sentencing enhancements in extreme cases — hate crimes, crimes against children and the elderly, and other crimes that meet certain criteria.
In no way am I advocating for the release of the defendant, Rhett Nelson. He allegedly has committed horrific crimes and I do believe he is being rightfully prosecuted. However, the bigger issue at hand here is, why are DAs and ADAs so against this criminal justice reform? In addition to dismissing sentencing enhancements, Gascón has also made waves for banning the use of the death penalty, barring prosecutors from trying juveniles as adults, and setting the stage to end the use of cash bail in the nation’s largest court system.
He followed up with those bans with statistics showing that sentencing enhancements disproportionately affect Black and Latino communities. Additionally, about 90% of defendants from the Los Angeles County Court system who are sent to prison under sentencing enhancements are people of color. Gascón said his goal is to reverse tough-on-crime policies of the past that stand to “undermine rehabilitation, exacerbate racial and other inequities in our justice system and they decimate families and communities. They also are crowding jails and prisons and exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic behind bars.”
Gascón has also sought to dilute the political power of police unions by barring them from contributing to prosecutors, receiving more pushback. There should not be police unions lining the pockets of prosecutors and their campaigns. That is an additional problem to reflect on when thinking about this entire for-profit prison industrial complex that reeks of institutionalized slavery.
In a moment of history where we are looking at change in order to make an equitable criminal justice system, it is disheartening to see this pushback. No one is advocating for criminals to be released to the streets without consequence for crimes. We are advocating for a reform that doesn’t primarily target men of color. People are calling for an end to mass incarceration and for-profit prisons that seek to convict even those who are innocent because it benefits them financially. It is understandable that shaking up the status quo is uncomfortable, but for those prosecutors who do not want to reform the system they know targets individuals of color, why? Being a prosecutor, your job is to prosecute “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That should be able to be done with reform. If not, then you are part of the problem. This “tough on crime” stance is old, tired, and racist. When you know a system disproportionally affects entire races of people and choose to ignore it, you are complicit and responsible for every wrongly convicted person.
The citizens of Los Angeles voted Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón into office. He ran on these promises of reform and this is what the people wanted. These sensationalized cases that get cited, like that of Rhett Nelson, are rare and far and few between when you look at the everyday crimes that show up in front of a criminal court judge. I’ve sat in a Los Angeles Criminal Court and witnessed the same people show up in front of a judge; the judge even saying “welcome back” and exchanging friendly banter. These are not for massive felony robberies or murder. These are usually minimal crimes of stealing from a convenience store, loitering, or drug possession.
Once again, I am not advocating for crime-ridden streets as the conservative dialogue likes to perpetuate. I am advocating for a change where recidivism is lowered because we sought to build rehabilitation into the system. Restructuring the system so that when a child whose prefrontal cortex has not even fully developed and is caught up in a gang that commits a crime, they’re not sentenced to life behind bars. Reform does not mean that we stop prosecuting crimes — it means we create a system that does not seek to put those who do not deserve life in prison a death sentence. We have an opportunity to honor the voices of people of color who are saying they are disproportionately affected by this system — because they are — and make changes to make this country not one of mass incarceration, but one of rehabilitation. We have a responsibility as allies to watch to see which DAs push back to this reform and hold them accountable in their next election. This is how change begins; with accountability.
The views expressed in the editorial and op-ed sections are not necessarily those of The USD Vista staff, the University of San Diego, or its student body.