We’re all criminals. Let that sink in a moment. All of us, we’re criminals. Ever driven 67 on the beltway? Criminal. Jaywalked? Criminal. Forgot to use your blinker before changing lanes? Criminal. Don’t have a license for your pet dog in the city? Criminal. Something else we all have in common is that we all want our criminal behavior excused, or at least not enforced upon.
I was being facetious about the examples of criminal behavior – except for the license to own a dog example. That is a needless ordinance, the purpose is served by the separate ordinance requiring rabies vaccinations. However, I was serious regarding we want our criminal behavior excused. The desire to have our criminal behavior excused isn’t unreasonable in and of itself. Should you really be given a citation for driving 67 on the beltway? But depending on what the behavior is the consequences of the behavior sometimes warrant criminal justice system involvement. Crack use or sex offences as an example.
Not all of these examples of criminal behavior should be taken off the books. Law enforcement needs the ability to engage in pretext stops to stop dangerous behavior, and that’s where the District Attorney’s office comes into play. Law enforcement officers refer charges to the DA’s office, and the elected DA sets policy on a) guidelines for accepting or rejecting charges b) plea bargains and c) cutting deals to catch the higher order offenders.
Are you happy with the way the city addresses criminal behavior? The DA’s office can’t require law enforcement to refer charges, but the elected DA can decide which type(s) of crime to have a near zero tolerance policy on. She also sets policy on when to cut deals to go after higher order criminals. The policy decisions the DA sets trickles down to law enforcement on which types of crime to crack down on and which types aren’t work the risks of a stop for enforcement purposes. Policy decisions lets the public know where the DA’s priorities are. Both candidates for DA need to be asked what their policies will be. And Devon’s answer needs to correspond to the current policies in force in her office.
Neither Here Nor There says
We should give police a reason to stop us. Did I read that correctly? If so we pass all these silly rules for that to happen?
Not much different than a smaller version of Stalin’s Russia.
Greg Degeyter says
Police already have reason to stop us all at will. What is the policy the DA will establish to guide police on when an infraction is worth and not worth enforcing? Which offenses will be considered worthy of attention and which offenses are ones to only use as pretext stops? Basically, how will the DA work with law enforcement to tamp down crime?
Fat Albert says
I’m sorry Greg, but the basic precept of your argument is not only wrong, I believe that it is evil. Do you really want to live in a country where your ability to stay out of jail is predicated on the willingness of some official to “overlook” your misstep? Between local, state and federal laws and regulations the are hundreds of thousands of “criminal” actions that any of us might take, completely unknowingly.
Do you have a low spot on your property? If you fill it in without permission, you’ve committed a crime. Have you purchased a musical instrument made from wood lately? If the wood was exotic, there is a reasonable chance you’ve broken the law – your instrument can be confiscated and you’re subject to fine or prison. The list is endless. . . . . .
The solution here is not to try to pick the least oppressive DA, the solution is to get stupid, silly and oppressive laws off the books.
Greg Degeyter says
From an idealistic standpoint I agree. However, from a realistic standpoint these laws aren’t going to come off the books. With the reality of the laws staying on the book, we need to know what the elected DA is going to focus on, and what they will do to combat crime. A DA’s priorities suggest what their policies will be, and their policies establish what the priorities are.
Jeff Larson says
The laws will come off the books as soon as people realize that with enough laws, there is no rule of law, only rule of the DA.
Greg Degeyter says
Do you really think the speed limit will be eliminated in the next 5 years?
Tom says
First, the DA, be it Kim Ogg or Devon Anderson has very little to do with enforcement of city ordinances. The only time I think they get involved is when there is an appeal to county court from a municipal court that is NOT a court of record. That eliminates Houston, Belaire and a bunch of other Harris County cities. The DA does prosecute class c misdemeanors in JP courts but the first anyone looks at them is when they are on the docket at the JP court. There is no central DA control over filing of class c misdemeanors (punishable by fine only).
Second, while the DA can accept or refuse to accept felony and Class A and B misdemeanors, it’s the police agencies who bring most of those charges to the DA’s office. Yes, the DA can say “We will no longer accept misdemeanor marijuana charges” or “We will no longer accept misdemeanor marijuana charges where there has been an arrest rather than a citation issued,” it won’t happen. Ask FORMER DA Pat Lykos who pissed off the cops by refusing to take trace cocaine cases.
And, yes, the DA can try to set priorities for law enforcement, other than a relative handful of DA’s investigators, the DA has no control over the police agencies. It took forever for the DA’s office to convince HPD that officers have no authority to demand photo identification from people not under arrest or suspected of a crime. HPD used to arrest people (almost always black or Hispanic) for failure to identify, then in the search incident to the arrest find the cocaine. So what if the Supreme Court and the Legislature say they don’t have that authority. They just did it anyway.
The DA elected in November, be it Devon Anderson or Kim Ogg needs to change the outlook of the Intake section of the office. Instead of rubber stamping every charge brought by a police officer, they should refuse cheap shit cases.
For my money, I agree with former judge Cappy Cosper, who said there are two types of people charged with crimes: those we’re afraid of and those we’re mad at. The resources of the DA’s office should be centered on violent criminals we’re afraid of. Yes, we have to enforce laws against people we’re mad at but they are second priority.