I write as a former career criminal trial prosecutor from Illinois. Price has reportedly commented that her goal is to divert someone from the criminal justice system anytime we can ... "because the criminal justice system has been shown to be racially biased and undermining." That was not my experience.
Price also is alleged to have directed her staff to plea bargain for the lowest sentence regardless of the circumstances of the crime: If a case is eligible for probation, that "shall be the presumptive offer," the directive reads. If it is not, the sentencing offer "shall be the low term."
If that directive is accurately quoted, it is not surprising that the crime rate in Oakland has risen dramatically under her tenure or that she faces criticism.
I would be interested to know who funded her campaign for office. I would be interested to know how many Alameda County prosecutors have left the office since Price assumed control prior to the arrival of the prosecutors the state has assigned to Alameda Co. I would be interested to know if my assumption is correct that these new additional prosecutor will be required to follow all of Price's prosecuting directives like the one quoted above.
Spectacular job! I hope the mainstream media starts adding some of this data to their articles. It's essential to have real data rather than guesswork and hunches.
Thanks - this is a deep dive and very well done. Somehow I missed this when it came out but I was sent a link to it today. The "no bright line" comment is deeply offensive and insulting to victims of violent crime. Not included here, but I also find it absurd that she has spent so much time going after prosecutors and law enforcement - it's such profound misspent energy given the crisis in Oakland. Ensuring public safety is the primary job of any government - Oakland's leadership has failed miserably. The broader trend of DAs playing games with public safety is repugnant and is going to be the breeding ground for a lot of future conservative thinking along these lines I hope. I have no party affiliations whatsoever - but in the truest sense of the word I think there is something valuable worth "conservering" in the fundamentals of a family, going to work and making honest money, saving up, and spending time together.
But does lock-em-up style prosecution crime deliver on public safety and justice? Historically the US has had high crime and a massive prison population.
The four aims of incarceration typically are: Incapacitation, Deference, Rehabilitation and Retribution. The US has traditionally focused on the first two, and is shifting increasingly toward emphasis on the third.
There isn't a definition for "lock-em-up" style incarceration. But design and improvement of the criminal justice system to deliver on the first 3 goals is complex. Some references for your consideration on the assumption that your question is sincere:
Incapacitation is the most compelling use and works incredibly well. If you look at the more heinous crime stories, or those involving violent crime in particular, they tend to involve individuals who merrily carry out crime after crime. In general a very small percentage of any given population is involved in violent crime or property crime (the only two I care most about), but the recidivism rates are massive. How we've arrived at a point where we went from a 3 strikes law to now releasing people on bail who are on their 40th, 50th+ offenses is completely incomprehensible to me.
I write as a former career criminal trial prosecutor from Illinois. Price has reportedly commented that her goal is to divert someone from the criminal justice system anytime we can ... "because the criminal justice system has been shown to be racially biased and undermining." That was not my experience.
Price also is alleged to have directed her staff to plea bargain for the lowest sentence regardless of the circumstances of the crime: If a case is eligible for probation, that "shall be the presumptive offer," the directive reads. If it is not, the sentencing offer "shall be the low term."
If that directive is accurately quoted, it is not surprising that the crime rate in Oakland has risen dramatically under her tenure or that she faces criticism.
I would be interested to know who funded her campaign for office. I would be interested to know how many Alameda County prosecutors have left the office since Price assumed control prior to the arrival of the prosecutors the state has assigned to Alameda Co. I would be interested to know if my assumption is correct that these new additional prosecutor will be required to follow all of Price's prosecuting directives like the one quoted above.
The articles on Price in the Berkeley Scanner could be helpful.
Spectacular job! I hope the mainstream media starts adding some of this data to their articles. It's essential to have real data rather than guesswork and hunches.
Thanks - this is a deep dive and very well done. Somehow I missed this when it came out but I was sent a link to it today. The "no bright line" comment is deeply offensive and insulting to victims of violent crime. Not included here, but I also find it absurd that she has spent so much time going after prosecutors and law enforcement - it's such profound misspent energy given the crisis in Oakland. Ensuring public safety is the primary job of any government - Oakland's leadership has failed miserably. The broader trend of DAs playing games with public safety is repugnant and is going to be the breeding ground for a lot of future conservative thinking along these lines I hope. I have no party affiliations whatsoever - but in the truest sense of the word I think there is something valuable worth "conservering" in the fundamentals of a family, going to work and making honest money, saving up, and spending time together.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11985311/alameda-county-district-attorneys-report-shows-prosecution-rates-remain-steady
But does lock-em-up style prosecution crime deliver on public safety and justice? Historically the US has had high crime and a massive prison population.
The four aims of incarceration typically are: Incapacitation, Deference, Rehabilitation and Retribution. The US has traditionally focused on the first two, and is shifting increasingly toward emphasis on the third.
There isn't a definition for "lock-em-up" style incarceration. But design and improvement of the criminal justice system to deliver on the first 3 goals is complex. Some references for your consideration on the assumption that your question is sincere:
Incapacitation:
https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depolicing-Wrong/dp/1546001514
Deterrence:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
Rehabilitation:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22648/w22648.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-strategic-plan-supporting-goals-federal-interagency-alternatives
Incapacitation is the most compelling use and works incredibly well. If you look at the more heinous crime stories, or those involving violent crime in particular, they tend to involve individuals who merrily carry out crime after crime. In general a very small percentage of any given population is involved in violent crime or property crime (the only two I care most about), but the recidivism rates are massive. How we've arrived at a point where we went from a 3 strikes law to now releasing people on bail who are on their 40th, 50th+ offenses is completely incomprehensible to me.