Bragg’s big risk
New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is making good on his promise to dramatically scale back the powers of his office to prosecute accused criminals and send them to prison, promising in a sweeping policy memo that “reserving incarceration for matters involving significant harm will make us safer.”
The emphasis is his. So is the risk, one that’s shared by the people of New York. All things being equal, there is nothing wrong and a lot right with jailing fewer people accused of crimes and sending fewer convicted criminals to prison, and instead seeking treatment for drug problems, mental illness and the like. It is wise and noble to expand noncarceral alternatives to rehabilitation once an individual is convicted.
But all things are rarely equal, and there’s a significant chance that some of Bragg’s reforms will embolden those who commit property and violent crimes in a city where both are on the rise.
Bragg’s memo lays out nine categories of crime he will not prosecute, unless they are part of a larger crime including a felony. While it is wise to include marijuana misdemeanors on the list and defensible (though, we think, not advisable) to include farebeating, also included is resisting arrest (“except for the act of resisting arrest for any crime not included on this declination list”). While the use of the charge can be abused, taking off the table for punishment the act of intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent an officer from subduing a suspect could endanger police. So too, we fear that making patronizing a prostitute generally unprosecutable will spawn brothels throughout Manhattan.
Carceral sentences — meaning prison — will only be sought (with an allowance for “extraordinary circumstances” exceptions) for a short list of offenses including homicide or other cases involving death, a felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, public corruption and major economic crimes. One wonders why Bragg leaves out crimes causing serious physical injury but not involving a deadly weapon, and also why an elected official who pilfers from the public fisc should be sent away, while a man who mugs a half dozen grannies is as a general rule deemed too trifling for prison.