DAs with opposing ideologies stand with victims

In recent years, prosecutorial ideology has taken center stage in the national debate around criminal justice change. Holding the view that harsher punishment does not increase public safety or reduce recidivism, California’s progressive district attorneys are often criticized by their traditional counterparts who say policies that shorten potential sentences and increase parole eligibility are regressive, embolden criminals and ignore victims.

Though subtle and indirect, that dialogue was on display this week as two prosecutors from opposite ends of the political spectrum met virtually with victims to honor National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and to discuss proposed legislation that could affect how crime is prosecuted next year.

“I’ve heard the term ‘reform’ used. In my own personal take, much of the bills that we’re seeing are not reform. They’re reckless,” El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson said at a victims’ rights news conference Thursday hosted by the California District Attorneys Association, which he leads as president.

But a day earlier at a similar conference, San Francisco County District Attorney Chesa Boudin said prosecutors must be open to change and be responsive to victims’ needs when developing policies or pushing lawmakers to carry legislation.

“I’m a firm believer in advocating for victims, in putting victims at the center of the criminal legal process, and we must never forget that includes all victims and survivors, regardless of who caused the harm,” Boudin said.

Boudin is co-sponsoring what he says is a first-in-the-nation bill that would allow victims of police violence to be eligible for compensation from the state without being required to produce a police report documenting their victimization. The sisters of Sean Monterrosa, the 22-year-old man who was killed by a Vallejo police officer last summer, said at the conference that SB 299, written by Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, would allow families like theirs to no longer rely on GoFundMe fundraisers to pay for funeral expenses.

“The reason you see me and Ashley here is because our parents have given us the capacity to do so,” said Michelle Monterrosa. “They both work seven days a week without taking time off to properly grieve and deal with the loss of their child.”

Each victim who spoke at the events had a thread of commonality in their beliefs. They said public safety is a top priority when it comes to criminal justice policy. But they viewed the role prosecutors and criminal punishment play in that process differently.

“When we talk about solutions, a lot of folks don’t understand why survivor voices are in this conversation around criminal justice,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a victims’ advocacy group that supports progressive prosecutor policies. “And for many of us as survivors, we have intersections. We’re being just as impacted by over-incarceration and mass incarceration. We’re being just as impacted by violence and public safety. We’re being just as impacted by trauma and unaddressed trauma. All of these things are connected in a way that a lot of other folks may not understand. So when we talk about solutions, we have to talk about solutions that don’t over-criminalize.”

Karen Gardner, whose husband was murdered in a shooting spree in 2006 in Sacramento County, said she doesn’t believe criminals cannot be over-punished for the trauma they impose on victims.

“The man that murdered my husband got death by lethal injection, and while I was going through that entire process, I said, ‘Lord, not my will but your will be done, and whatever the sentence is, Lord, I’m OK with it,’” Gardner said. “And when he got death by lethal injection, I believe that justice was served that day.”

Pierson spoke alongside Gardner and several others whose family members had been murdered and one man who was robbed at gunpoint in Oakland’s Chinatown. Together they opposed a proposed bill that would nearly eliminate all gun enhancement charges that increase prison sentences for convicted criminals who use a firearm in commission of a crime.

Under AB 1509, written by Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-San Jose, a person who is convicted of intentionally firing a gun that caused great bodily injury or death could only be sentenced with a three-year enhancement as opposed to 25 years to life. The bill would apply retroactively, allowing anyone sentenced to prison with a firearm enhancement in the past to seek release.

Pierson said the firearm enhancement statutes AB 1509 aims to repeal were enacted after an armed robbery left a woman dead during the nationwide crime spike in the late 1980s and early 1990s that many have said were the catalyst for tough on crime laws. “The idea was to make the penalty so severe that people going out and committing robberies ... would be afraid to carry a firearm on them,” Pierson said.

Wilson Young, the man who was robbed at gunpoint Oakland, said the bill would be damaging if enacted because it would “give the bad guy a chance to come out quickly and hurt more people.”

Progressive DAs such as George Gascón in Los Angeles County and Boudin in San Francisco have rejected the notion that increased sentences lead to reduced community violence, pointing to recent spikes in shootings and other violent crimes in places where prosecutors are seeking maximum sentences as evidence.

And some victims who live in communities experiencing high crime rates say they support the proposed law.

“As a survivor of violent crimes, I have learned that enhancements do not create safety,” said LaNaisha Edwards, program director at Re: Store Justice, an organization that advocates for ending harsh sentencing laws. “Survivors want safety and sentence enhancements aren’t designed to create safety but designed to exact extreme punishment.”

AB 1509 is in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, and SB 299 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 3.