The Post v. Bragg: Legit Criticism or a Hit Job?
By Vincent Scala
Posted: 1/19/22
It was all but impossible last week to miss the unrelenting attacks by the New York Post on brand-new Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The assault was ostensibly because Bragg was in the process of turning Manhattan over to murderers, rapists, robbers, drug dealers and other miscreants.
Is this actually true? My answer is that it is overblown garbage and theater. The Post takes facts out of context and warps the policies he has set regarding the prosecution of crimes in the Big Apple.
No one wants murderers and rapists and others roaming our streets and receiving a $50 fine for violent crimes. No one wants major drug-traffickers receiving three days of community service when they deal in major amounts of narcotics. That includes Alvin Bragg. He has proposed some common-sense reforms to use the resources of the DA's Office in a more sensible, strategic and focused way. He has NOT proposed eliminating prison sentences for a single violent criminal. He has NOT proposed reducing serious felonies to misdemeanors.
Not Opening Jail Doors
The Post has suggested that a person charged with a gunpoint robbery will be free to roam our streets after the crime. This would receive 10 Pinocchios from any objective analyst. Mr. Bragg has made clear that he will be following state law, with its required terms of imprisonment for robbery (depending on the degree of the crime and the criminal record or lack thereof of the offender). The same thing goes for rapists, arsonists, kidnappers, major economic crimes and the like.
Will Mr. Bragg seek or consider reduced sentences for first-time nonviolent offenders? My guess is yes, and I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who has practiced criminal law having any issue with that. I prosecuted and now defend hundreds, if not thousands of people for all manner of crime. I have secured non-jail sentences for many first offenders. This has been the case since the first day I walked into a courtroom in 1984 as an Assistant District Attorney in the Bronx and has continued under tough DAs like Robert Morgenthau, Richard Brown of Queens and Charles Hynes in Brooklyn.
I always did what I could to put my client's best foot forward in asking for consideration based on factors like no criminal record, work history, family obligations, contributions to the community, and health issues. Mr. Bragg is saying publicly what has been true for decades in the city and its suburbs.
For years, men and women who jump the turnstile on the subway have been arrested, taken to a precinct, booked, fingerprinted and then arraigned in Criminal Court. I have never seen the person accused not immediately released to either come back to court or perhaps pay a $50 fine. Is it really the best use of limited police resources, limited corrections resources, limited court resources to have to process these cases through the criminal justice system? Just so everyone understands, processing a fare beater on the subway takes about the same amount of resources as processing a person who just committed a gun-point robbery or a murder.
Is Mr. Bragg wrong in wanting to bring some semblance of order by setting priorities for people who run afoul of the criminal justice system? This is a question which we should all be asking ourselves. We will never have enough resources to make every single resident safe in our great city. Might it not be better to use these resources (police manpower for one) on serious crimes that are the real concern of everyday NYers?
Does 6 vs. 10 Matter?
When Mr. Bragg suggests that a more-humane prison sentence be imposed in a case, is he wrong or are his opponents and enemies engaged in a bit of political theater? Does anyone seriously believe that a 10-year prison term is more of a deterrent than a sentence of 6 years? Studies by experts have indicated that the speed of the arrest and the prosecution of the offender is a much-greater deterrent than the actual sentence (within reason of course; a 10-year prison term is more of a deterrent than a 6-month term).
Mr. Bragg is the newest and latest victim of a smear campaign by men and women who need a wedge issue. A case in point occurred recently a shoplifter was confronted by a store clerk. He pulled out a knife and threatened her (not more than a verbal threat). He was prosecuted for petit larceny. The NY Post treated this as if a knife- point robbery was NOT prosecuted.
I can't think of a similar instance when the DA's Office would have charged a robbery at knife-point. If they did, the reality is that the charges would be reduced in a couple of court appearances. Instead, Mr. Bragg's office decided to charge is for what it was. His enemies are turning these non-issues into hot-button cultural issues. They will do all they can to tear down the new DA, who is giving long-overdue consideration to some more- progressive and yes, humane charging and prosecuting decisions.
I seriously doubt the changes he has proposed will throw New York into chaos, with crime run amok. Manhattan is a safe borough for its residents and tourists. This is not to suggest that crime will not occur and not to suggest that serious crime will never occur. Any loss of life, as we saw the other day on the subway, is a senseless tragedy. Her offender will, I am sure, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The newly elected DA is just the latest in a series of bogey men for politicians and hucksters to exploit for their own purposes. It should be recognized for what it is.
