LA DA Candidates Q&A, Part Two: Law Enforcement and the Death Penalty

This is part two of a continuing series of questions and answers with the candidates for Los Angeles District Attorney.

When Mayor Karen Bass held a press conference to announce an inter-agency law enforcement task force to tackle the issue of smash and grab robberies, one person was noticeably absent:  Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon.

Exactly how bad does your relationship with the rest of law enforcement have to be to – as the chief prosecutor – not be asked to be a part of such an event? As a former elected official I can tell you: very very very bad.

Cops simply do not trust Gascon to prosecute people properly when they are arrested, a fact that has led directly to fewer arrests (that’s why Gascon can try to claim crime is down – pretty convenient, huh?)

As to the death penalty, it is an admittedly sticky ethical issue for some but not only is it state law but attempts to eliminate it entirely have been soundly rejected by California voters – twice.

Let’s get to today’s questions:

How has George Gascon harmed the DA’s office relationship with other law enforcement agencies and can it be repaired and, if so, how?

DEBRA ARCHULETA

Gascón has actively and intentionally strained the relationship between the DA’s office and their law enforcement partners. Many officers feel demoralized because the DA’s failure to prosecute misdemeanor and felony crimes has rendered their efforts meaningless. Our law enforcement agencies feel disrespected, with some losing approximately twenty percent of their force. Our communities absorb these losses as they result in longer response times, a lower level of service, and fewer cases filed on behalf of victims. Despite the years he spent as a police officer and in police leadership, Gascón has abandoned those who have followed in his footsteps since becoming District Attorney. Restoring these one-strong partnerships will be a priority in my administration.

DANIEL KAPELOVITZ

I already work well with law enforcement, and in fact, treat them with more respect in court than many prosecutors. While I have no police-union support, many retired officers who have spent decades in law enforcement have endorsed me.

Instead of defunding the police, we need to increase funding to pay for more training and to offer higher salaries to recruit the best people. The same goes for our attorneys. We need to compete with corporate law firms and pay competitive salaries so new attorneys will work for us instead of soul- sucking law firms. And we need to be able to hire veteran criminal attorneys from other jurisdictions and offices and from private practice.

MARIA RAMIREZ

The relationship between the District Attorney’s Office and law enforcement is critical to carrying out our duties to keep the community safe from crime. From Day 1, George Gascon excluded law enforcement from his plan for a “reformed” public safety plan. Gascon has not listened to law enforcement when they express concerns about how to effectively carry out his policies without harming the public. Gascon hired and promoted a self-proclaimed “cop hater” to Chief of Staff knowing that this will further damage his relationship with law enforcement. It is clear that the relationship between Gascon and law enforcement is broken. I do not know if the relationship can be fixed because Gascon would have to first acknowledge that he made several mistakes and second would have to start including law enforcement in discussions about prosecution policies. It seems unlikely that Gascon has a sincere willingness to collaborate with law enforcement.

DAVID MILTON

Mr. Gascon has caused law enforcement agencies to lose complete confidence in the office. The agencies are aware that many of the cases will be handled with an eye toward filing charges that carry the least amount of penalty. That filing will be declined in many instances, and serious crimes will be downgraded to misdemeanors. Recently, Mr. Gascon appointed as his Chief-of-Staff, an individual who advocates for the disbandment of police agencies, including LAPD. She stated that they are “barbarians” “who are out to kill us.” I would restore the much-needed confidence based on my long-time experience as a deputy district attorney who worked on many serious and difficult cases with many police agencies.

NATHAN HOCHMAN

Collaboration is one of the most important qualities of a District Attorney and arguably is one of the current DA’s greatest failures. Gascon has made a point of putting special interests and politics over the needs and support of law enforcement, resulting in a deteriorated relationship and lack of trust between law enforcement agencies and his office. He has been more interested in prosecuting the police than partnering with them. 

As District Attorney, I will always exercise an open-door policy with our partners and ensure their voices are heard on crucial matters regarding our justice system. I am in a unique position to restore the collaborative partnership between the DA’s Office and local, state, and federal law enforcement, having worked as a federal prosecutor and US Assistant Attorney General; led federal, state and local task forces; defended law enforcement officers in administrative hearings and court; co-founded the LA Sheriff’s Foundation; but also have personally prosecuted corrupt officers.  This gives me credibility with all groups – law enforcement, victims, the public – that my calls will be based on the evidence and the law, not some political ideological agenda like Gascon.

California voters have repeatedly affirmed their support for the death penalty.  Would you ever pursue the death penalty and, if not, why?

DEBRA ARCHULETA

The District Attorney’s Office has a Special Circumstances Committee that reviews all death-eligible and LWOP cases. This team, consisting of many of the most experienced prosecutors, meet to discuss the appropriate penalty in these types of cases. As a Deputy District Attorney, I appeared before this Committee. The death penalty is to be considered only in extremely rare instances for particularly egregious cases, such as a mass school shooting or murder of a police officer in the line of duty. As District Attorney, I would pursue the death penalty only under such severe circumstances. Ultimately, however, the death penalty is imposed by the jury in each case and is subject to multiple levels of appellate review.

DANIEL KAPELOVITZ

In LA County, where I’m running, the majority of voters in 2016 voted to repeal the death penalty.

Views have changed since 2016. People are realizing that the death penalty doesn’t work and disproportionately affects nonwhites and the underprivileged. In a 2021 poll, 44% of Californians said they’d vote to eliminate the death penalty, with only 35% supporting it. Additionally, 48% supported Newsom’s executive order to halt executions, while only 33% opposed it.

I will never seek the death penalty. That people on death row have been exonerated is reason enough to eliminate it. Moreover, it doesn’t deter murder. People committing crimes assume they will not get caught. Otherwise, life in prison would deter them just as much as execution. Eliminating the death penalty would save California countless millions – money that could be used to address the root causes of violent crime. And, of course, killing people is wrong.

MARIA RAMIREZ

The death penalty continues to be the law in the state of California despite multiple attempts to repeal it. As District Attorney I must follow the law, but we have a responsibility to implement the law fairly and just. I will implement a thorough and robust process of review for the most heinous of murders and pursue the death penalty when appropriate.

DAVID MILTON

I have a great deal of experience with the subject matter. As a prosecutor, I achieved two death verdicts. As a judge, I imposed a death sentence. A district attorney’s personal view is not a relevant factor. A district attorney is duty-bound to follow the law. Californians have twice voted that the death penalty should be an option for the most egregious cases. If a district attorney is so opposed to the death penalty that he cannot follow the law, he should not be the district attorney.

I drafted two death penalty bills. Shooting from a motor vehicle causing death and shooting into an inhabited dwelling causing death. Because there is a moratorium on the penalty, the district attorney must evaluate on a case-by-case basis, collaborate with experienced deputy district attorneys and thereafter determine whether the penalty should be sought considering factors such as certainty of guilt, whether it likely will be imposed, budget constraints and other factors.

NATHAN HOCHMAN

The death penalty should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny by the DA’s Office, a jury, and the courts and should only be used in the rarest of cases. However, there are such extreme cases – for example, where police officers are assassinated in cold blood, where mass shootings at a school occur, where terrorists kill hundreds through a bombing — when the death penalty should be on the table for consideration. I am well aware of the troubled history of the death penalty, of those who have later been vindicated, and of the philosophical issues concerning its implementation. However, as District Attorney, I take an oath to uphold all the laws, not just the laws I like. There is no asterisk in this oath, and any candidate who cannot fully uphold this oath to enforce all laws should be disqualified from being the District Attorney. As long as the death penalty is the law of California, I will honor my oath and subject it to the highest level of review, considering its charging in the most heinous of cases to which it applies.

The following candidates did not participate:  Eric Siddall, John McKinney, Jon Hatami, Jeff Chemerinsky, and Craig Mitchell.

As to George Gascon, he was asked different but related questions:  

Your relationships with other law enforcement agencies are strained.  Why is that so and what would you do to repair them?

California voters have repeatedly affirmed their support for the death penalty.  You have an adamantine policy of never pursuing the death penalty.  Is this not in direct conflict with the will of the public?

Again, he did not reply to the request.