George Gascon fights his own prosecutors over three strikes
A lot of DAs have been in the news lately, haven’t they?
Here’s what George Gascon of Los Angeles has been up to while he prepares to face a recall vote:
Gascón’s prosecutors sued him so they could “charge repeat offenders to the fullest extent of the law.” The DA wants to appeal in front of the California Supreme Court:
“In June, the Second Appellate District Court upheld portions of a lower court’s injunction that said Gascón cannot refuse to charge three-strike cases, which can dramatically increase prison sentences for some of the most serious repeat offenders.
“Gascón is hoping to have the court’s order overturned, arguing that it is ‘draconian,’ creates ‘a dangerous precedent’ and amounts to ‘taking the charging decision out of a prosecutor’s hands.’
“‘The district attorney overstates his authority,’ the Second Appellate District ruling reads. ‘He is an elected official who must comply with the law, not a sovereign with absolute, unreviewable discretion.'”
But for Gascon, l’état, c’est moi.
The article also mentions that Gascon hired a very high-priced lawyer for the appeal, and of course the Los Angeles taxpayers will be footing the bill.
And remember Mike Schmidt, the Portland, Oregon DA we talked about just yesterday? Here’s more about how some of the policies he supports on drug addiction have affected that city and the state of Oregon:
Criminal-justice reformers garnered support for the bill [ballot Measue 110] by claiming that it would reduce both addiction and alleged racial disparities in the criminal-justice system. A solitary dissenter, Paul Coelho, a physician with Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics, said, “The framers of ballot Measure 110 portray individuals with active addictions as rational actors who will naturally seek out and accept treatment for their condition. But I can assure you as a front-line provider this is simply not true. . . . Unfortunately, removing the threat of incarceration and abandoning the collaboration between law enforcement, the judiciary, probation, and the drug court system will result in a revolving door of drug abuse, treatment refusal, crime, homelessness, and ongoing costly health related expenditures for hospitalizations due to overdose, infections, and drug-induced psychosis.”
Oregon should have listened. On the issue of reducing addiction and overdoses, Oregon’s decriminalization of drug use has been a tragic failure. Overdose deaths rose by over 33 percent in Oregon in 2021, the year after the law was passed, compared with a rise of 15 percent in the rest of the United States. As for the claim that the law would provide a pathway to treatment for addicts, less than 1 percent of the people eligible for treatment under Measure 110—a paltry 136 people—ended up getting help. In fact, out of the 2,576 tickets written by police for drug possession, only 116 people called the help hotline to get the ticket waived, with the vast majority of the others choosing to pay the minimal fine instead. As Coelho warned, without the threat of incarceration and the mandatory court programs that come with an arrest, addicts seldom have any interest in getting treatment.
The impact of decriminalizing drugs did not stop with addiction and overdoses. Police in Portland report that all categories of crime jumped in reaction to Measure 110.
It is extraordinary that people would think the effects would be otherwise. Do they know nothing about drug addiction? It’s as though the song “Imagine” is their manual.
The racial aspect seems to be part of the motivation for these approaches – the idea that, if you stop defining an activity as a crime, then the disparity among the races in incarceration rates will go away. This was Schmidt’s attitude:
Portland district attorney Michael Schmidt gleefully announced that his office would immediately stop prosecuting drug possession even before the law went into effect, saying, “Past punitive drug policies and laws resulted in over-policing of diverse communities, heavy reliance on correctional facilities and a failure to promote public safety and health.”
And getting rid of those policies has made the situation worse. That’s a common approach by the left – get rid of something that didn’t work very well before you have a clue what to replace it with that would be more effective. Perhaps they even want the ensuing chaos.
“Perhaps they even want the ensuing chaos.”
No, they’re just stupid. So much of this nonsense is performative. They’re doing things to make themselves feel good in the moment and cannot think beyond that.
There is a Leftist critique that America puts too many people in prison. But no Leftist with an ounce of sense thinks the correct response to that is to simply stop enforcing the law en masse, because they know the chaos that invites is an invitation to rightwing authoritarianism.
They’re just stupid.
Mike
No, they’re just stupid. So much of this nonsense is performative. They’re doing things to make themselves feel good in the moment and cannot think beyond that.
Agreed.
I do think the Imagine song is indeed their manual.
“That’s a common approach by the left – get rid of something that didn’t work very well before you have a clue what to replace it with that would be more effective. Perhaps they even want the ensuing chaos.”
It’s not so much that, as they feel the need to DO “something.” They never think about what the ramifications of DOING “something” might be. They never really think through what “something” could or should be. But they can feel good about themselves because they DID “something.”
The “overincarceration” theme has been part of Black Lives Matter propaganda since 2020. It fits right in with the abolishment of school discipline. The victims of this, of course, are blacks themselves. Black school kids accused of “acting white” are victims, not only of crappy schools but gangs and violent black peers. Vouchers would help some, but of course, Obama opposed them. While his kids went to private schools. One of the few things I liked about Carter is he sent his daughter to public school in DC.
Regarding Mike Schmidt and addiction, My comment is always: Lock ’em up for three or four weeks. They are no longer addicted. Some will stay that way.
I always get replies from naive stating how that doesn’t work.
“Gascón’s prosecutors sued him so they could “charge repeat offenders to the fullest extent of the law.”
That indicates a huge amount of frustration. Which in turn leads to the supposition that those prosecutors must have previously and repeatedly protested against Gascón’s policies in the strongest of terms. Those protests must have pointed out that Gascón’s policies were leading to increased rates of crime. Increased crime rates easily confirmed by Gascón.
The conclusion is inescapable that Gascón is knowingly and intentionally enabling violent crimes, which makes him an accomplice in those crimes.
So too with all these Soros prosecutors. Arguably, Soros is also a direct accomplice to the enabling of those crimes.
As are those voting a second time for these prosecutors.
Justice requires Gascón be held accountable. When a ‘justice’ system is so corrupted as to make justice through the legal system impossible, then no alternative to vigilante justice remains.
Impaneled within a jury seeking to prosecute said vigilantes, I would vote to acquit.
The consequential result of the law abiding refusing to “take the law into their own hands” is tyranny arising out of the resulting chaos, when good men have refused to do more than verbally complain. It may not be now but history demonstrates that a time can come, when only actions count.
Pingback:Friday Evening Links - The DaleyGator
Please note, the feckless voters of Los Angeles County had a mainstream DA who they replaced with Gascon. A three-for, she’s a black lady.
Yes jackie lacey that was pattericos boss
“That’s a common approach by the left – get rid of something that didn’t work very well before you have a clue what to replace it with that would be more effective.”
I recognize from my leftist youth the impulse involved here. And I detect it in young radicals today. “This is intolerable, anything would be better.” But I don’t know how anyone can get past the age of thirty or so and still think it’s an approach that’s likely to do anything but make a mess, at least, and at most a disaster creating lots of misery. Nor do I find it easy to believe that all that many middle-aged and older radicals are really so nihilistic as not to care if their plans don’t actually work. Maybe “just stupid” is the answer.
“Tampering without knowledge creates problems.”
From a NASA report.
“Lock ’em up for three or four weeks. They are no longer addicted. Some will stay that way.
I always get replies from naive stating how that doesn’t work.”
Who’s the naif? If you think a 21-day or 28-day jail detox breaks addiction, you are. They come out still addicted, and having spent the meantime talking with other addicts about how they are going to party the instant they’re released.
A 28-day treatment may help an addict who wants to get clean. But the desire to use will still be there for at least a year. That desire can overcome the best of intentions. And if the addict doesn’t want to get clean–many do not–then that money was wasted.
And state-funded treatment is a gift to clinic owners. It’s very useful for judges who want to get the annoying-as-hell addict out of their courtroom. For the addict it may be a 30-day vacation, expenses paid. If they have access to money, they have access to drugs in treatment.
I have listened to an addict announce she was heading in to her 25th round of taxpayer-funded treatment. Oh, but this time it’s going to work! because, Jesus! or whatever. I checked. There were records easily found for 10 of the committments.
30 days is just enough, if they stay clean in jail, for the head to clear enough to contemplate what needs to happen for the addict to stay clean. But it does not end the addiction.
A 28-day treatment may help an addict who wants to get clean. But the desire to use will still be there for at least a year. That desire can overcome the best of intentions. And if the addict doesn’t want to get clean–many do not–then that money was wasted.
It’s not money wasted. People who use street drugs are a generative public order problem and a headache for their families. Deterrence, punishment, and incapacitation are just. Put the convicted user in a tiny cell designed for one person and allow him out for just five or six hours a day. Leave him there for a year.
Gordon Scott on July 23, 2022 at 4:04 am said:
“Lock ’em up for three or four weeks. They are no longer addicted. Some will stay that way.
I always get replies from naive stating how that doesn’t work.”
Who’s the naif? If you think a 21-day or 28-day jail detox breaks addiction, you are.
LOL! Thanks for confirmation.