LA’s New DA: Hugs for Thugs, Snubs for Victims

The new District Attorney for Los Angeles County yesterday issued a series of criminal-friendly policies. There is so much wrong with them, it will take multiple posts to describe it all. Among other things, the office will not seek any sentence enhancements under any circumstances, and the office will take the criminal’s side in seeking to remove already imposed enhancements in prior cases. That includes the ultimate sentence enhancement, capital punishment.

One of the things that strikes me about all the sentencing policy memos is how they almost completely ignore the victims of the crimes.

Under Article I, section 28(b) of the California Constitution, Marsy’s Law, victims of crime have rights to notice and an opportunity to confer with the prosecutor and be heard by the court or parole authority as to both the initial imposition of sentence and any subsequent proceedings. While the sentencing policy memos have procedures for other aspects of the deputy district attorneys’ task, the only direction to notify the victims, consult with them, or take steps to insure that they are able to be heard by the court is a generic direction to comply with laws regarding notification. That terse and grudging cross-reference sends a message loud and clear on where the priorities of the District Attorney lie: It’s all about the perpetrators, and we will involve victims only the extent that the law forces us to do so.

There is a memo on victim services, a mere page and a half in comparison to the longer and more detailed pro-perpetrator memos.

The memo requires the Bureau of Victims Services (BVS) to contact victims of violent crime within 24 hours of notification. A prompt initial contact is helpful, but what about keeping the victims notified of the progress of the criminal case? What about insuring that their right to be heard on sentencing is honored? Crickets.

This is followed by this remarkable paragraph:

BVS will also contact the families of individuals killed by police and provide support services regarding funeral, burial and mental health services immediately following the death regardless of the state of the investigation or charging decision.

Where does the DA get off diverting scarce victim services resources to pay expenses for perpetrators whose own choices to violate the law resulted in their own deaths? If they or their families are indigent, these expenses should be paid from the same sources that pay for burials of indigent persons who die of natural causes. Persons killed by justified use of force by police are not victims of crime and are usually perpetrators of crime. Spending victims’ funds on perpetrators is an outrage. It might even be a crime.

The introductory paragraph of the victim services memo contains some statements prompting speculation as to what planet these people are from.

“The criminal justice system must ensure that [victims] have the rights and resources necessary to defend themselves, as well as services to facilitate their re-entry to the community.”

The first clause is fine, though I question whether Mr. Gascón is genuinely committed to Second Amendment rights. The second clause is odd. Re-entry to the community? Most victims never left the community. Some require hospital stays, but that is not leaving the community. “Re-entry” is a term used for perpetrators getting out of prison or jail. Is the use of this term intended to imply an equivalence of victims with perpetrators? If so, that would be a gross insult.

Here is another: “It is a sad reality that the vast majority of victims do not find justice in the system, as many offenders are not known, arrested, charged, or convicted.” That is a true statement, but it is a half-truth, and a particularly outrageous one in the context of the other policies.

Many “victims do not find justice in the system” because the perpetrators get off with grossly inadequate punishment even though they are “known, arrested, charged, [and] convicted.” The other policies released on the same day will multiply such miscarriages of justice many fold.

What kind of utterly shameless hypocrite could bemoan the “sad reality” of victims not finding justice in the system in the same batch of policies where he intentionally exacerbates that sad reality?

Did the people of Los Angeles County really understand what they were voting for when they elected this man? That is hard to believe.