The prosecutor
It’s slightly peculiar to see a few progressives elevating former prosecutor and state attorney general Kamala Harris to the position of presidential favorite while a groundswell movement takes place simultaneously to close the doors of privilege to Central Park Five prosecutor Linda Fairstein. The Avu DuVernay Netflix series When They See Us has shown a bright light on a stark historical example of prosecutorial misconduct by Fairstein, one that should leave Harris similarly vulnerable to criticism. Instead, she’s a popular choice among those in her party's “anybody but Bernie”coalition.During this primary season, each of the twenty-something Democratic presidential candidates-- save for Joe Biden-- are aping Bernie Sanders and the rhetoric of his impressive 2016 campaign, yet none of them, perhaps most especially Kamala Harris, have the public record to match that of the durable and firebranded Democratic Socialist from Vermont.
Lara Bazelon, the former director of Loyola Law School’s Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles, wrote today for the New York Times, “In her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.” She fought to uphold convictions that had been obtained through misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony, and the suppression of evidence, according to Bazelon.
Like Fairstein in New York City, Harris pushed to keep people in prison even after they had been proven innocent. As attorney general of California, her legacy is maintaining the status quo on the matters of prison overpopulation, the wrongfully-incarcerated, and the death penalty. Her office fought to release fewer prisoners even after the US Supreme Court found that overcrowding in California prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. She fought the appeal of a man, Daniel Larsen, that had been proven innocent by the Innocence Project, claiming the man had filed his petition for release too late. A court was forced to overturn her decision. Despite claiming she was morally opposed to it, she vowed to enforce capital punishment in her state, then did so vigorously, even as she broke her standard and declined to defend Proposition 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage, another law she said she opposed. Her office appealed a judge's verdict that tossed out an indictment against a state prosecutor found to have falsified a confession. She opposed statewide standards for police-worn body cameras and opposed a bill that would require her office to investigate shootings involving officers. She promoted legislation that would allow for the prosecution of parents of children that were habitually-absent from elementary schools. And though she now says she supports the legalization of marijuana, even for recreational use, and consistent with changing public opinion, she laughed in 2014 when a reporter asked if she would back it.
Her campaign and her defenders are saying today-- after what is largely considered to be a strong debut performance in the series of nationally-televised debates-- that these were the actions of her office, not of her. Now she’s seeking power and control over another-- higher-- office. Her rhetorical style is brilliant, but as I’m sure even the prosecutor herself would tell you, what should matter most is the evidence. On the campaign trail, in front of audiences comprised of Democratic primary voters, she's a bold and outspoken progressive, but Kamala Harris has always managed to keep her focus attuned to her own career, first and foremost, and that continues.
posted by CM @ 7:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home