I’m undecided in the Suffolk DA’s race, so I want to share my thoughts with others who might be in the same position.
The DA’s job is not to be some kind of neutral manager of prosecutors. The DA’s job is to set an agenda. To decide what justice is, and how the full weight of the Commonwealth will pursue justice in his or her district. Which cases to prosecute, what sentences to seek in those cases, whether to throw out cases involving police misconduct, etc.
I’m really disturbed by the number of prosecutors running for District Attorney in Suffolk County and around the commonwealth. Even more disturbing is the assumption by the media that candidates should have prosecutorial experience. That’s like assuming the head of the EPA should come from the ranks of Big Oil executives. Sure, they have relevant experience, which will make them more competent in a few aspects of the job. But the biases that come with that experience FAR overshadow any increase in competence. This isn’t a knock on oil executives, or prosecutors. In our economy as it’s currently designed, we need oil companies, and they need some kind of leadership. In our justice system as currently designed, we need prosecutors. Plenty of good people serve in both jobs. But in both cases, we should be moving toward a system that minimizes the need for those roles as much as possible, and someone who comes from those backgrounds generally is not the person to do it.
Someone who has too much experience inside the DA’s office carries a certain set of biases. Like all biases, they can be overcome. But when you’re deciding who to vote for, don’t just let a candidate tell you they’ve overcome those biases, or pretend they don’t have them. Make them SHOW you that they’ve overcome those biases; that they have a history of working for a better justice system instead of just being a cog in the machine. One candidate in the Suffolk race has already shown that she hasn’t overcome those biases, by accepting the endorsement of the MBTA Police Association. Another is a career prosecutor in Dan Conley’s office, so if he believes that office’s policies are wrong in any way, he sure hasn’t had the courage to show it. That leaves Shannon McAuliffe and Evandro Carvalho as the only two potentially worth voting for. And Carvalho has a history as a prosecutor, so if you’re considering voting for him, make him explain himself. Why did he agree to work for Dan Conley, advancing the racist and classist mission of Dan Conley’ office? Did he do anything to change that agenda while he was there, and can anyone vouch for that claim? What has he done since then to absolve himself? How is he going to resist the pressure when he’s now the boss and his first real boss is “advising” him to adopt some terrible policy? If he can answer those questions satisfactorily, he might actually be a good DA. If not, McAuliffe is the clear choice.
Well said. McAuliffe seems outstanding.
You’re so right, if you care about criminal justice reform, career prosecutors or those close to the police have a lot of explaining to do.
Larry Krasner in Philadelphia has set a great standard for DAs and I hope MA can follow suit, especially in urban areas that feel the brunt of our white supremacist “justice” system.
The analogy is not at all apt. Oil executives are likely to be opposed to the very purpose of the EPA. Prosecutors, OTOH, are ultimately what DAs are – the chief prosecutor for the county.
I agree with Christopher on this one. Our justice system is adversarial by design, prosecutors (like defense counsel and judges) need to be competent at what they do, and competence comes with experience. In the analogy to the EPA, the prosecutor stands in one of the adversarial roles — the oil executive or the environmental advocate, and it’s a judge who stands in the role of the EPA administrator.
I agree the OP takes the analogy too far and prosecutorial experience should not be a disqualifier. Kim Foxx and Mosley in Baltimore are both career prosecutors who are innovative and social justice oriented. I do agree that those two are my top two choices and I hope to educate myself by talking to community members on who they think the best choice is. We deserve an activist, reform minded approach to the DA’s office in Suffolk and Middlesex alike.
I don’t buy this. There may be oil executives who would make good regulators, and there may be pharmaceutical executives who would be just great at the FDA, but that’s in spite of their experience., not because of it.
The same goes for District Attorneys. The attitudes that a typical prosecutor is exposed to with regard to police issues and defendants’ rights, are not the attitudes that we should be looking for in a DA.
I also don’t buy the argument that experience as a prosecutor is necessary to doing a DA’s job. Robert Kennedy had never tried a case in court when he was appointed Attorney General.
You do know that the office of the district attorney is the office that prosecutes criminals, right? Why would it be actually disturbing for a member of that office to run for the position that leads the office?
I think it is good to evaluate the candidates for District Attorney based on what agenda they would set, but I think that the framework you’ve presented for that evaluation – one that treats prosecutorial experience as a big negative – is totally incorrect. Ultimately, the District Attorney represents the people in criminal cases. That’s the job. That doesn’t preclude someone with primarily defense attorney experience from taking the job either – both sides of the justice system know how things work.
You’re right that the DA sets the agenda, they are not just a neutral office manager, but also remember that regardless of who is elected, they automatically become prosecutors. It’s the job.
This is a typical position in the political climate we live in. Take 20% of truth and mix it was stereotypes and ignorance and you get this kind of twisted mush. Other people have pointed out the flawed analogy with regards to hiring a Oil Ex to oversee the EPA. And while everyone would agree that DA jobs are important and transparency and a commitment to the principles of justice are essential (hell, it is a prerequisite to be a lawyer), the notion that anyone who has experience as a prosecutor should be looked at with distrust is just ignorant. So people graduating from law school and accept jobs paying $35,000 because they want to get basic court experience so they can get criminal law experience to open a practice are suspect in your book. Yes, there is abuse and people must be help accountable, but you seem amenable to placing a big P on the forehead of anyone that ever worked as a prosecutor.
If they worked in certain offices and perpetuated the culture of those offices in their work, then asking questions is certainly reasonable. Conley’s office was very bad and someone who worked in that office their entire career or someone who worked there a shorter time should absolutely explain if they were part of that dominant culture in the office or if they challenged it in some way.
Now you are particularizing and it simply don’t work that way. You are attempting to bring specifics to re-enforce the generalities.
Asking questions of a particular person in a particular situation is certainly reasonable. But there is no way to justify asking those questions in the general case.
It’s generally applicable as it applies to all MA DA offices (although Conley’s office is of special note). If you worked in those offices, explain how you tried to change the culture. If you won’t or can’t, no thanks.