Question 1: Why are you running for District Attorney?
During my first term, we made major strides towards rolling back the terrible policies that led to mass incarceration without any real correlation to public safety. We have reduced the future years people will spend under supervision by nearly 80,000, have cut future years of incarceration by over 18,000, and have helped to safely reduce the jail population to lows not seen since 1985. We have exonerated 17 people in 18 cases, and we have held police accountable. Mass incarceration and all of its collateral consequences cannot be rolled back in four years, however, nor can we restore, in that short of a time frame, the broken trust between the community and an office that for too long abused its power. We have kept our promises, but we have more to do.
I am running again because I believe that with another term, we can expand our programs that address root causes of crime, increase our support for public health solutions to trauma and substance use, see money saved on punishment invested instead in our communities, and restore racial equity to a system that still lacks it. I do not want to see Philadelphia go backward. We must keep moving forward.
Question 2: District attorneys can choose how charges are filed against an individual accused of a crime, including whether or not to prosecute certain types of charges, and what kind of charges are filed. What is your approach to charging?
My office only charges cases where doing so has a public safety benefit. That means we do not prosecute cases like possession of marijuana, prostitution, or crimes of poverty, like criminal trespass. Prosecution has no deterrent value for people charged in these cases, nor does it help to solve any problems. Instead, prosecuting these cases takes resources away from more serious cases, from supporting victims, and from implementing real solutions to problems that harm our communities. We therefore ask, in each case, whether there is any benefit to the public if we charge it. If doing so will not markedly improve public safety, there is no justifiable reason to bring the case.
My office also regularly diverts cases when doing so benefits public safety. We have dramatically expanded the number and types of cases that are eligible for our many diversion programs, where people are connected to services in lieu of prosecution, and have their cases dismissed when they complete any required programming. This helps prevent the collateral consequences associated with criminal records, and these programs address the root causes of crime.
Question 3: What is your position on the role of diversion for drug-possession cases?
There are some drug possession cases that should not be prosecuted at all, like possession of marijuana. Marijuana is legal in many places, its use does not harm other people, and we have historically applied that charge disproportionately to people of color. We should not be wasting diversionary resources on cases like that. For other cases where drug possession is symptomatic of a substance use problem, diversion can be extremely helpful in connecting people with needed services. Sometimes, the services people need are job-related, and drug possession cases really masks the underlying needs people have. Sometimes, people need treatment. And sometimes, they are just recreational users, and services will have no impact at all. We should allocate diversionary resources to serve the people who need them the most, and tailor programs to those needs. There is, however, rarely a reason for simple drug possession cases to go through the normal prosecution track. Doing so does not protect public safety, it doesn’t deter drug use or sales, and it does give people criminal records that make it more likely they will commit crimes in the future. This country is now in fifth decade of the War on Drugs—it should not be controversial by now that prosecuting drug possession offenses has largely been a colossal failure and caused immeasurable harm to our communities.
Question 4: What is your position on cash bail?
Cash bail has no place in our justice system—it keeps people in prison who cannot afford to buy their way out, and lets those with means purchase their freedom, even those who have committed very serious offenses. We are limited, however, in our ability to eliminate cash bail because of Pennsylvania’s law on it, and need the legislature to pass a new law. In the meantime, we have done our best to mitigate the harsh effects of cash bail. In our first year, we produced a list of charges on which we would ask for release on recognizance, meaning release without cash bail. In the last year, we implemented our bail 2.0 policy. We expanded the list of policies for which we would push for release without bail or conditions. For cases where we believed the person posed a serious danger to the community, we requested $999,999 bail amounts. We did this to mimic pre-trial detention, because unfortunately, pre-trial detention is extremely limited in Pennsylvania.
During my next term, I hope to work on two things to improve the fairness of the pretrial process in Philadelphia. First, I will work with the legislature to eliminate money bail entirely, and instead expand options for pre-trial release with conditions (like reporting, electronic monitoring where absolutely necessary, and stay away orders). I will also continue working with the judges, the defense, and pre-trial services to hold earlier and more robust release hearings for those who are detained after arraignment, and to achieve expedited release hearings when probation and parole detainers are imposed.
Question 5: Do you think there is a public threat from the existence of sexism, racism, and white supremacy within law enforcement? If so, what role would you as DA take in addressing this, if any?
Yes-in fact, a new report from the FBI shows how white supremacist groups have deliberately infiltrated law enforcement over the last several years. Throughout my career and as the DA, I have also seen numerous examples of abuse by law enforcement towards women, both internally in the police department and externally. There can be no doubt that racism exists in American policing—the numbers on stops, searches, and arrests make that very clear.
My office has worked extremely hard to dramatically increase police accountability, and in my second term we will continue with these measures. We developed a do-not-call list of officers who we did not believe we should rely on at hearings or at trial because through their actions they have indicated they lack the credibility necessary to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This list includes officers who made racist, sexist, and xenophobic comments, and officers known to lie and cheat in their cases. This sent a powerful message to officers that abusing their power would no longer be tolerated. We also developed a robust police accountability unit that has been unafraid to prosecute those officers who cause serious harm.
Implementing all necessary reforms could never happen in just four years. We have more to do. In the next term, we will establish a grant-funded truth, justice and reconciliation commission that shines a light on police and prosecutorial integrity violations, violence and abuse. We will continue to expand and support the evenhanded prosecution of crimes committed by police. And we will track allegations of illegal conduct by police, including illegal searches and seizures and warrantless arrests, to catch troubling patterns and increase integrity in law enforcement.
We also make sure to show we are independent from Police Unions, which is critical to showing the public that we will always do what is right and hold people accountable. Our campaign, therefore, does not accept police money.
Question 6: Philadelphia is experiencing a gun violence epidemic, and rates of fatal and non-fatal shootings have increased in the last year. What role does the DA’s office have in addressing the gun violence epidemic?
First, we must place the bulk of our office’s resources into investigating these cases, which we do. This office charges and prosecutes homicides with vigor, as it does with other shootings, gun cases, and other acts of violence . Any time my detractors say otherwise, they are not telling the truth. We also, however, must be honest and admit that these prosecutions do not prevent violence, that by the time a prosecutor is involved the violent act has already occurred. Prosecutions do not and cannot address the underlying causes of homicides. Additionally, most homicides in this city go unsolved and never make their way to the DAO. Our office’s top priority is to support and elevate what works to reduce homicides before they occur and not just punish after the fact: public health solutions to the gun violence that is harming our most
vulnerable communities. The office, therefore:
- Advocates for increased funding and use of evidence-based violence interruption programs and blight remediation in our hardest-hit neighborhoods, both of which have proven overwhelmingly successful at reducing gun violence when capable people do them in the right way;
- Supports financial investment in our hardest hit communities, including trauma counseling, educational opportunities, and job development to stop gun violence before it happens;
- Will request increased funding for our hospital trauma centers.
Additionally, I have and will continue to use my platform to encourage the legislature to pass laws that:
- Implement robust gun control;
- Increase violence prevention funding, including support for Cure Violence, blight remediation, and increased gun violence trauma treatment at our emergency centers and in our communities.
Question 7: Under what circumstances, if any would you seek the death penalty?
I have not sought the death penalty.
Question 8: What is your approach to sentencing recommendations?
We should only seek sentences that actually have a public safety benefit. Research is unequivocal that sentences of 40, 50, or 60 years rarely serve the public in any meaningful way. People age out of crime and can safely be home with their families. Having prisons filled with people who are in their 50s and 60s and older is nonsensical from any practical viewpoint. But instead, we have traditionally been committed to locking people up for as long as possible, ignoring the reality that most people are capable of growing, changing, and rehabilitating. This is extremely costly, because caring for the elderly in prison brings with it large medical expenses.
It is also inhumane. There is no reason for someone to die in a wheelchair in prison.
As a result, our office only seeks sentences that are proportionate to the benefit they serve the public and increase the safety of our communities. We are careful not only in our recommendations, but also in how we charge cases – which impacts sentencing ranges. We do not, for example, automatically seek the harshest charge available, but rather, the one that we know we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We also only seek incarceration when that will benefit public safety, recognizing that non-incarcerative sentences often have long term positive benefits, as people can keep their jobs and stay with their families. We also seek sentences that
provide people meaningful opportunities for release and the chance to show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to the community.
Question 9: What is your position on how the DA’s office policies can impact mass incarceration?
My position is that under prior administrations, the DA’s office played a major role, not just here in Philadelphia but all over the country, in creating our mass punishment and mass incarceration crisis. We then have the obligation to do all we can do reverse that. I am committed to doing so and have worked towards this goal throughout my first term. As I stated, we have reduced the future years people will spend under supervision by nearly 80,000, have cut future years of incarceration by over 18,000, and have helped to safely reduce the jail population to lows not seen since 1985. But that doesn’t mean we are done rolling it back, or that we can do it alone. Mass incarceration is a product of forty years of policies implemented by legislators, judges, and of course, District Attorneys. My office needs to continue expanding our diversion programs and examining what cases we are still prosecuting that we should no longer charge, but likewise, we need to work with other partners to make changes at the legislative level that allow for earlier parole consideration, a more robust clemency process, and shorter probationary tails on sentences, among other changes.
Question 10: What is your policy on civil asset forfeiture?
We have ended the abusive civil asset forfeiture practices utilized by prior administrations. We do not use forfeiture money for our own benefit. Instead, we reinvest any money that the office seizes through illegal conduct in the communities most harmed by police violence and underinvestment.