But the testimony of two witnesses — Lindsey Appiah, deputy mayor for public safety (for what she didn’t say), and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation (for what he put in the record) stand out.
When asked about the state of violent crime in the city, Appiah responded, “I would say there is a crisis” — an acknowledgement that stands in sharp contrast to the denial by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who told the House Oversight Committee in March “there is not a crime crisis in Washington, D.C.”
Left out of Appiah’s remarks, however, was her more detailed written critique of the District’s criminal justice system structure, which is a plague on local governance and accountability. Appiah’s staff explained that Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) had already referred to the unique system in earlier congressional testimony, so the administration decided that point need not be made again.
But the House Judiciary Committee overseeing crime in the District is exactly where the point needs to be driven home. The city has no control over this hybrid system. For example, the D.C. police make adult arrests, but it’s the U.S. Justice Department, via a federal U.S. attorney, that decides whether to prosecute. The city’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services is responsible for youths in detention, but many youth offenders are supervised by federal agencies. Most D.C. offenders are residents of the District, but they are incarcerated in federal institutions across the length and breadth of the United States. D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and their inaction has resulted in a courthouse with 11 judicial vacancies. These problems can’t be remediated within the John Wilson Building (or city hall.)
The subcommittee hearing was also noteworthy for the testimony of Stimson, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the D.C. office, where he served in various divisions, including homicide and violent crimes. He has also been a criminal defense attorney and is currently a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
At issue is not Stimson’s ideology nor his views on public safety policies, but rather the accusations he made and the actions that he called for Congress to undertake. The mayor and council need to weigh in on these issues.
“Judges of the D.C. Superior Court,” Stimson told the subcommittee, “have eroded accountability in the criminal justice system by their notoriously light sentences across all categories of crimes, contributing to a culture of lawlessness in the District.” Is this fact or fiction? What say city leaders, the criminal justice coordinating council, the bar association, etc.?
Stimson then urged Congress to review opinions issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which he asserts have “caused restrictions to be placed on law enforcement authorities and prosecutors that are far beyond the requirements of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.” Are his statements fact or fiction? Where does D.C. stand on this requested action? Does the city even have a position?
Stimson also told the subcommittee that the D.C. Attorney General’s Office (OAG), which handles juvenile crime, “for decades has failed in its mission to hold violent criminals accountable, including murders and armed carjackers.” He said while most youths committing crimes should — and do — have their cases handled by the juvenile justice system, certain crimes call for a different approach and “need to be prosecuted in adult court.”
In a written statement submitted to the subcommittee, Stimson said the OAG “hold on to as many juvenile cases as possible, including cases involving recidivists charged with violent crimes. The office hires social justice warriors who see juveniles arrested for committing crimes as the victims, not as errant youth in need of accountability and rehabilitation.” Stimson declared in his oral statement, “Congress should strip the OAG from prosecuting all crimes and give that to the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
Stimson’s proposals are now on the record with Congress for action. What do city officials, specifically the council’s committee on judiciary and public safety, think about that?
Appiah was not able to respond on behalf of the city during the hearing. But clearly the District has a duty to weigh in, and if not before the House Judiciary subcommittee, as least before Congress takes a position one way or the other.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) dismissed the hearing in a statement, “Federal politicians and prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office don’t know or care more about keeping D.C. safe than District officials who are elected by and accountable to District residents.” All well and good.
But Thursday’s hearing was more than a partisan boxing match or another opportunity for Republicans to vilify or embarrass a Democratic-led city for its handling of crime. It was not just a partisan exercise for D.C. to endure.
Seeds were planted. Will they — should they — grow? Where is the city’s serious voice?
Credit: Source link
