Los Angeles DA Candidates Low-Key Square-Off

Eleven of the twelve declared candidates for Los Angeles District Attorney squared off Monday night in a debate at Los Angeles City College hosted by the League of Woman Voters.

The event was comparatively polite, with few (if any) directly personal barbs fired despite the presence of current DA George Gascon (the only candidate to not appear was Jon Hatami who was reported as “unavailable.”)

That’s not to say Gascon escaped criticism – he was attacked from left right and center in fact.  Self-described “most progressive candidate” and defense attorney Daniel Kapelovitz said the office has prosecuted “factually innocent” people and very bluntly said “the criminal justice system is racist.”

From the practical center (or non-ideologically-based,) candidate Maria Ramirez sharply criticized Gascon, calling him a “failed leader” who “failed to incorporate real reform” into the office

From the more conservative side, candidate Nathan Hochman said people tell him on the campaign trail that “enough is enough” and they feel unsafe, with Debra Archuleta posing a simple question to the audience: “Do you feel safer than you did three years ago.”

On the issue of retail crime, it must be said that the question itself was at best leading, at worst flatly incorrect (the event was co-sponsored by the ACLU of LA, amongst others.)  The premise of the question was that there is a perception, but not a reality necessarily, of retail theft being up in LA under Gascon’s leadership.

Each of the three candidates who was asked to respond to the question said, no, that perception is reality and retail theft is up – a lot.

“It’s not just a feeling but an escalation in crime,” stressed Hochman, Ramirez said the essentially the same and called for heavier prosecution of “quality of life” crimes, and candidate Craig Mitchell went even further, saying the fact that “the toothpaste is locked up at CVS” is all the proof needed that theft has increased.

“You can steal $950 over and over again and if you do not prosecute, it’s open season,” Mitchell said.

Both Gascon and challenger Eric Siddall said they would not seek the death penalty, in part because it does not work.  Candidate John McKinney disagreed, saying district attorneys are “duty bound to follow the law,” but that seeking the death penalty should be “extremely rare and only done after great reflection.”

Restorative justice – technically (in a nutshell) an alternate oath that brings the victim and offender together to design the outcome of the case (apology, jail or not? restitution, face to face meetings, etc.) – was supported by both Gascon and challenger Jeff Chemerinsky, with Chemerinsky stating that the final decision to go forward down that path must be with the victim and that more serious crimes should not be considered at all.

Gascon said he too puts the victim at the center of the process, which must surprise the families of victims he has publicly insulted and refused to stand with at parole hearings.

All of the candidates agreed that addiction and mental health diversion and services programs can be effective but that the promised state resources to make them work – actually providing services to the offenders – have yet to appear.

Siddall called for the construction of 3,500 bed lockdown treatment center – there are 50 such beds in the county now, he said – while Archuleta told of the dozen or so babies she as family court judge must remove from the drug-addled mothers each week.

Candidate David Milton also said that diversion courts and other alternative systems can work but one must be careful of “malingering,” i.e. criminals trying to take advantage of seemingly “easier” time (he also warned of inmates fabricating “evidence” in order to get their sentences reduced and/or their convictions reviewed by the DA’s office.”

Lesser known candidate Lloyd “Bobcat” Masson made an appearance Monday as well.  A prosecutor with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office (I think – his website lists him as a cold case prosecutor but does not say with whom and, with the passing Judge Roy Bean, folks just can’t ride around prosecuting people willy nilly – his state bar page lists his work address as the SBCDA, so that’s probably correct.)

Masson talked vaguely of uniting people but offered few specifics, though, per his website, he does seem to have a thing for catalytic converter theft:

Even odder than that was one of the main reasons Gascon gave for voters to return him to office: his endorsement by the Los Angeles Times.  Really – he seemed very proud of that and clearly has no idea that that endorsement is not exactly the vote getter it once was.  He said he was proud that he was chosen even with every candidate being interviewed and having their statements “fact checked” by the staff.

He got the endorsement, he said, at least in part because those “fact checks” showed “that some of (the other candidates) we’re not telling the truth.”

Gascon taking the moral high ground on honesty – now that really made the debate worth watching.