 |
|
||
Frequently Asked QuestionsBy Mel AndersonCandidate for District Attorney | |||
This information is provided by the candidate | |||
Why I am a candidate running against the incumbentQ: You are running for D.A. against your own boss. Are your criticisms of him strictly in the legal area or are there other issues, maybe even personal issues between the two of you? No. This is not about personality. I am running to make changes in policy. I think George’s policies governing prosecution of career criminals are dangerous. I can’t just stand by. These policies have got to change. Q: What policies?Policies that allow career criminals to plead to lesser charges. Policies that disregard or discount past crimes so that repeat felons can dodge the law governing three-strikes offenders.Q: But doesn’t the D.A. have discretion in these cases? Can’t he reduce charges if he chooses to? Sure. The law was written to give prosecutors a certain amount of flexibility in three strike cases. I think that’s appropriate. What I disagree with is the way the D.A.’s Office manages that discretion. Q: Specifically?Over one half of the three-strike cases we see are downgraded. Keep in mind, these are the worst of the worst criminals in the system. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I’d say nearly 100%, these guys are going to commit crime after crime unless they are incarcerated. Most have been in the system, in prison for most of their adult lives. If jail time could rehabilitate them, they’d be model citizens by now.Q: So what’s your recommendation?The only way we can protect ourselves from people who have made a career out of crime is to keep them off the streets. Once a criminal has demonstrated complete disregard for the law, for the life and property of others, the safety of citizens has to come first. By the time we see them in my office, realistically they have only two career choices left: career criminal or career prisoner.Q: Aren’t there exceptions?Of course. Each case must be reviewed to determine extenuating circumstances. Nobody wants to make a mistake when you’re asking for 25 years to life. As District Attorney, I will take that responsibility very seriously. The acid test is always, is this person a continuing threat to our community? I do not believe that test is being applied.Q: Based on what?Our office, a law enforcement office, is dismissing or just not counting prior convictions of three-strike defendants in 54% of cases. The actual numbers are these: 543 reductions out of 1025 three-strikes cases in Santa Clara County. These criminals have already been convicted twice of serious felonies like rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, child molestation. It should scare you that these people are released back into our neighborhoods before they should be. It scares me.Q: The D.A. must be aware of the danger. So why is he dropping or reducing charges in these serious cases? I don’t know. I do know that he was originally opposed to the Three Strikes Law. He may be worried about public perception. Recently he wrote that he thought the public views district attorneys as “bloodthirsty, right-wing extremists” (California DA Association Magazine 11/97). I don’t know where he got that idea, except from his own perception. If that’s his view, he’s wrong. Q: O.K. What makes you think you’re qualified to administer the D.A.’s Office? The issue is not administration. It’s policy. As a management negotiator, I spent over 15 years working with top managements of large corporations. I’ve worked with some of the best and some of the worst, and over the years, I’ve learned to tell the difference. I’ve been in the D.A.’s Office for eight years, and the Office has been well-administered over that whole period. There are many talented, hard-working administrators and team leaders who keep things working day-to-day. That won’t change. Q: On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate the current D.A.’s overall management performance? A definite 5. Q: Besides three-strikes, is there any other issue important to you?Yes. I was the first full-time felony D.A. assigned to domestic violence. I had no idea of the physical and emotional suffering involved. These are some of the toughest cases I’ve ever had to deal with.Q: Tough? In what way?Well, first of all, they are tough to try. Battered women are often too scared to testify against their batterers. Juries are naturally reluctant to convict without that testimony. We have to educate juries. We bring in experts to help the jury understand the bind these women are in. Special points of law must often be introduced which might typically not appear in other sorts of cases. With all that, it’s still an uphill battle.But mostly, I think, it’s the victims themselves who make these cases tough for prosecutors. They are so vulnerable, and short of putting the bad guy away, there’s not a lot we can do directly to protect them. These are people you get to know and care about. Often the prosecutor is their only advocate. These women usually return to the guy who’s hurting them. You know it won’t get better. It usually gets worse. That’s tough. Q: What can be done?Traditionally our culture has turned a blind eye to domestic violence. That attitude is absolutely wrong. I believe that police and prosecutors have a duty to treat the very first instance of domestic violence as a serious crime. Once violence breaks out in a home, it has a way of escalating. We should not wait until the victim is murdered or seriously hurt before taking these crimes seriously.Q: Anything else?Yes. Because it’s hard to gain a conviction in these cases, many do not go to trial. That’s wrong. These are serious crimes committed by violent criminals. I believe that, as prosecutors, we are obligated to develop the resources and training necessary to prosecute these cases successfully. |
Candidate Page
|| Feedback to Candidate
This Race
|| June 1998 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| County Election Links
About Smart Voter
ca/scl Created from information supplied by the candidate: May 20, 1998 10:21
Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, Smart Valley Inc.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.