1. This speech from the other day by Asst US Attorney Jeffrey Rosen, attacking reform-oriented district attorneys, is simply STAGGERING in its dishonesty, even by Trumpian standards.
Which means they are scared. Tough-on-crime is scared.
justice.gov/opa/speech/dep…
Which means they are scared. Tough-on-crime is scared.
justice.gov/opa/speech/dep…
2. “Stunning increases” in violent crime.
Yes, murder jumped by 20%—because it was already so LOW. And it jumped from historic lows to near-historic lows, and is now heading back to… historic lows.
Yes, murder jumped by 20%—because it was already so LOW. And it jumped from historic lows to near-historic lows, and is now heading back to… historic lows.
3. Rosen engages in some flagrant obfuscation. He states that targeting violence keeps us safe (debatable, and will come back to this), then attacks DAs who propose categorical denials as making us less safe.
But NONE has proposed categorial declines for violence.
But NONE has proposed categorial declines for violence.
4. Then he asks if it is about local will, why “those communities” don’t just change the laws.
Rosen surely knows the lie here. And it’s a lie.
A county electorate can’t change a state law.
Open contempt for the law students he was talking to.
Rosen surely knows the lie here. And it’s a lie.
A county electorate can’t change a state law.
Open contempt for the law students he was talking to.
5. Then, of course, “the victims.”
The victim/offender line isn’t clear at all: many ppl offend BC OF prior victimization.
And victims are a complex group of ppl with a wide range of view… but many do NOT embrace uncritical severity.
The victim/offender line isn’t clear at all: many ppl offend BC OF prior victimization.
And victims are a complex group of ppl with a wide range of view… but many do NOT embrace uncritical severity.
6. “What abt the victims??” is just the tough-on-crime advocate’s way of saying “don’t you dare try to challenge my punitiveness with facts or data or reason. I. HAVE. INVOKED. THE. VICTIM.”
Some victims DO favor severity. Many don’t. It’s complex. And they aren’t the only ppl.
Some victims DO favor severity. Many don’t. It’s complex. And they aren’t the only ppl.
7. Then Rosen triples down. Translating: “How DARE the district attorney take seriously her ethical OBLIGATION to do justice for EVERYONE?”
Rosen apparently thinks the opening title sequence to Law and Order reflects actual ethical duties.
It doesn’t. And he knows it.
Rosen apparently thinks the opening title sequence to Law and Order reflects actual ethical duties.
It doesn’t. And he knows it.
8. The fact that Rosen would openly and flagrantly misstate the ethical obligation of prosecutors to do justice AT A LAW SCHOOL shows just how appalling this sort of par-for-the-Trumpian-course fearmongering is.
9. Rosen’s fearmongering comes in the wake of @SamKrumholz’s excellent new paper showing electing a non-white DA leads to a 10% decline in prison admits… with no impact on arrests—or crime!
The data is not on Rosen’s side. And this speech reflects that.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
The data is not on Rosen’s side. And this speech reflects that.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
10. The literature is clear that tough punishment is not what deters (that’s arrest), that it frequently over-incarcerates (ppl age out of crime), and often INCREASES the risk of recidivism.
Severity and safety ARE. NOT. SYNONYMS.
However much ppl like Rosen want them to be.
Severity and safety ARE. NOT. SYNONYMS.
However much ppl like Rosen want them to be.
11. Anyway, this is a despicable speech, one that is divorced from any actual empirical reality, and rooted in fearmongering and open misrepresentations of politics and law.
But Rosen?
Boudin, Descano, Dehghani-Tafti, Biberaj, Ashworth, Hingeley, and Stollsteimer all say hello.
But Rosen?
Boudin, Descano, Dehghani-Tafti, Biberaj, Ashworth, Hingeley, and Stollsteimer all say hello.
