I hear there’s a theory that Twitter makes you stupid. That certainly seems to be the case with substack blogger Matthew Yglesias, who has written an excellent post and a stupid tweet on the Washington, DC city council’s rewrite of the District’s criminal code, passed over Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto and now almost surely going to be overturned by ravenous, “red meat” congrssional Republicans, always happy to piss on the District, and cowardly Democrats, led by coward in chief Joe Biden. I’ll dispense with the stupid tweet first, in which Matt links to a posting regarding a real time carjacking in DC with the comment “It's really odd to me that the DC Council is preparing to move forward with legislation that would reduce the penalties for carjacking.”
As both Billy Binion of Reason and Jill Lawrence of the Bulwark point out, the “reduction” that has Matt cryin’ like a Karen is from 40 to 28 years, not exactly slap on the wrist territory, and Jill goes the extra mile to give us some actual, you know, historical data, asking
But how disturbed would most people be if they knew that in the eight cases of armed carjacking that concluded from 2016 to 2020, judges handed out an average sentence of 15 years? Or that in over twenty cases of unarmed carjacking resolved during that period, the average sentence was about seven years?
Which leaves Matt, one has to say, hoist on his own petard, lookin’ like a chump. And it’s tempting to go with Bill n’ Jill to ridicule Uncle Joe for knuckling n’ trucklin’ to Republican semi-racist hysteria over crime and, even worse, violating the Democratic Party’s long-time support for D.C. home rule. Bill in particular has harsh words for Mayor Bowser for vetoing the bill in the first place:
Although the reaction to the carjacking provision provides a good microcosm for this debate, it's not the only portion that drew an ire that doesn't comport with reality. The bill "would also expand the right to a jury trial for those charged with misdemeanors but facing jail time," wrote Mayor Bowser. She meant that as a bad thing, which is, on its own, an amazing admission. The bedrock of this country, as envisioned by the Founders, was the right to a trial by jury. Ensuring everyone has access to that constitutional right, and is not punished for using it, is something that, in theory, would unite people. And yet, it is controversial.
It's at this point that it’s worth reading what Matt wrote rather than what he tweeted. Matt points out that D.C., uniquely, has no court system of its own; all the courts in D.C. are federal courts (Jill has some nice historical background as to why). Surprisingly enough, the D.C. criminal courts are not a priority with the U.S. Congress, and that creates a big problem, as Matt explains:
Currently about a quarter of our trial judge positions are vacant, with more vacancies expected. Two of the nine seats on our appeals court are vacant. This makes it hard to prosecute offenses in a timely manner. D.C. did progressive bail reform a long time ago, which I largely support, but that means it’s a huge problem for law enforcement if you can’t actually prosecute cases — people just end up right back on the street. If you expand the number of offenses that require jury trials without a commensurate increase in resources, you are going to de facto legalize a lot of low-level misconduct.
It's certainly arguable that D.C.’s current arrangement is unconstitutional. I support not locking people up prior to trial if they’re charged with “low level” offenses. But I find myself often at odds with “progressive” prosecutors around the country, who have many good ideas, but also some bad ones, including, often, an impatience with bringing charges for crimes like shop lifting, turnstile jumping, public urination, etc., as though it’s just “hassling people” to punish offenses like this. If permitting jury trials for misdemeanors whenever jail time is on the table simply encourages prosecutors to drop charges in all but the most serious misdemeanors, whether or not that was the city council’s intention, the quality of life in D.C. is likely to suffer.
