Written by: Sam Orlando
STAUNTON, VIRGINIA - As America braces for the 2024 presidential race, an unexpected face-off emerges: Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor with a contentious record, against a multi-time convicted felon. The stakes are high, and Harris's past may be her biggest hurdle.
In a political climate where criminal justice reform is paramount, Harris’s record as a prosecutor is under intense scrutiny. Her journey from a "progressive prosecutor" to a potential presidential candidate is filled with decisions that continue to spark debate. Here’s why her past actions might haunt her campaign.
A Progressive Prosecutor or a Pragmatic Politician?
Kamala Harris often brands herself as a "progressive prosecutor," but her record has drawn mixed reactions, particularly from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Her tenure as California’s Attorney General and San Francisco’s District Attorney includes several actions and decisions that many progressives find troubling.
Turning a Blind Eye: The Police Shootings Controversy
As Attorney General, Kamala Harris opposed Assembly Bill 86, which would have mandated her office to independently investigate deadly police shootings. This decision came at a time when police violence was a significant issue, especially following high-profile cases such as the shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento. Clark, an unarmed Black man, was shot multiple times in his grandmother's backyard, sparking widespread protests and heightened demands for police accountability.
Harris's opposition was rooted in her belief that local district attorneys should handle investigations, arguing that state-level oversight could undermine local control. Critics contended that local district attorneys often have close working relationships with law enforcement, leading to conflicts of interest and insufficient accountability.
"Kamala Harris had the authority to intervene in law enforcement misconduct cases but often deferred to local DAs, who are too closely tied to police," said law professor Lara Bazelon, highlighting the inherent conflicts of interest in such cases.
Truancy Laws: Locking Up Homeless Moms and Dads?
Harris championed a controversial truancy law during her tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, which later influenced state legislation when she became Attorney General. The law, introduced in 2010, aimed to combat chronic absenteeism in schools by imposing penalties on parents of truant children. Critics argue that this law disproportionately affected low-income and minority families, criminalizing parents instead of addressing systemic issues.
"Harris’s support for punitive truancy laws has been criticized for disproportionately affecting low-income families of color," noted education advocate John Affeldt.
Death Penalty Dilemma: "It's Hard to Trust Where She Truly Stands"
While Harris personally opposed the death penalty, her actions as California’s Attorney General reflected a complex and often contentious dual stance. She made a campaign promise not to seek the death penalty and upheld this stance as San Francisco District Attorney, even in high-profile cases like the 2004 murder of a police officer. However, as Attorney General, she defended the state’s use of the death penalty in court, arguing her duty was to uphold existing laws. This dual stance created a perception of inconsistency and pragmatism over principle, drawing criticism from progressives.
"Her record on the death penalty has been criticized for inconsistencies. She opposed it personally but defended it in court as Attorney General," said law professor Michael Dorf.
The Marijuana Debate: Jailing Pot Users?
Although Harris eventually supported marijuana legalization, her initial reluctance to fully endorse it during her early tenure as California’s Attorney General drew significant criticism. Despite her progressive "Back on Track" program aimed at rehabilitating nonviolent drug offenders, her cautious stance on marijuana legalization appeared contradictory to many observers. It wasn't until much later, as public opinion shifted significantly, that Harris openly supported decriminalization and expungement of marijuana-related convictions.
"Kamala Harris faced criticism for her delayed support for marijuana legalization, which activists argue caused unnecessary harm," noted cannabis activist Sarah Gersten.
Prison Overcrowding: Kamala Accused of Supporting "Modern Day Slavery"
One of the most controversial aspects of Harris’s record was her office's resistance to reducing California's prison overcrowding. Following a 2011 Supreme Court ruling mandating California to address unconstitutional prison overcrowding, Harris’s office argued against the early release of nonviolent offenders, citing the need for inmate labor to fight wildfires. This stance was criticized as exploiting prison labor and prioritizing it over inmates' rights and well-being.
“Given the history of slavery in Louisiana and America, these working conditions need to come under particular scrutiny and concern,” argued Mercedes Montagnes, executive director of the Promise of Justice Initiative, reflecting the broader criticism of prison labor as a form of modern-day slavery.
Statewide Body Cameras? Kamala Harris Said No!
In addition to the above issues, Harris's stance on body cameras for police officers has also drawn criticism.
As California’s Attorney General, Harris mandated body cameras for agents of the California Department of Justice in 2015. However, she opposed a statewide bill that would have required all law enforcement officers in California to wear body cameras. Harris argued that such mandates should be decided by local jurisdictions rather than imposed at the state level. This position was seen as a reluctance to adopt broader reforms aimed at increasing police accountability, disappointing many progressives who were advocating for systemic changes in policing practices.
State Senator Holly Mitchell, a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, expressed dissatisfaction with Harris's stance, noting her absence from key reform efforts: "Her opposition to statewide legislation didn't sit well with the California Legislative Black Caucus. They saw her as on the wrong side of the fight".
The Biden-Harris Administration and Criminal Justice Reform
Analyzing the Biden-Harris record on criminal justice reform isn't hard. In fact, one of the administration's first acts was to roll back key criminal justice reform executive orders signed by President Trump. Among these was Executive Order 13980, which required agencies to specify the criminal intent needed for regulatory violations.
"Mens rea," meaning "guilty mind," is a fundamental concept in criminal law, determining the level of intent required to commit a crime—whether it’s knowing, willful, or premeditated. Trump’s order aimed to simplify these regulations, making it clear to Americans what actions were illegal, thereby reducing the risk of inadvertently breaking the law.
The order was supported by a diverse group of criminal justice reform advocates, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Charles Koch Foundation. They praised it as a significant step toward clearer and fairer regulations.
However, Biden rescinded this order early in his presidency, causing concern among reform advocates. Critics argue that this move, part of a broader effort to reverse Trump-era policies, disregarded important reforms that had bipartisan backing.
“If Biden had a strategy beyond ‘undo everything Trump did,’ this reform should have been preserved,” commented a reform advocate from The Heritage Foundation. By rescinding the order without offering a clear alternative, Biden risks ensnaring more Americans in the complexities of the criminal justice system.
This decision, coupled with Kamala Harris’s prosecutorial history, places the Biden-Harris administration's commitment to criminal justice reform under scrutiny. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, their past and present actions will likely be pivotal points of debate.
Reconciling Her Prosecutorial Past
As Kamala Harris steps into the presidential race with Biden's endorsement, her prosecutorial record and the administration's stance on criminal justice reform will undoubtedly be focal points of debate. In an era where criminal justice reform is a critical issue, past decisions and policies will be scrutinized. While Harris brings extensive experience and a track record of pragmatic governance, reconciling her past actions and the administration's recent decisions with the progressive values of many Democratic voters will be a key challenge in her campaign.
In the end, Harris's ability to bridge the gap between her prosecutorial past and her potential Presidency will likely impact her success in the 2024 presidential race.
Σχόλια