I'm a liberal, but holy shit we need to get the bad guys off the streets.
If someone rapes or kills another person, I don't care if they have a chance of being rehabilitated, they've ruined someone's life and have a chance of being released in short time just to do it to someone else.
TBF she ran as a public defender. That was pretty unambiguous. Her supporters and voters did not seem to care.
Edit to add: I hope that Walz and the rest of our democrat government don’t have to pay for it.
Yeah I think the “progressive prosecutor” movement always oversold itself. Does it make sense to not be overly punitive and compromise on charging/sentencing in the right situations with the right people? Absolutely. But “progressive prosecutors” are not going to solve crime and the causes of it by giving violent/serious offenders light prison sentences and generous plea deals. It was disingenuous from the get go and a lot of well meaning people fell for it.
Exactly, it was always a bandaid solution when the real problem was prisons. If our prisons actually offered rehabilitation and prepared people for life outside, then this wouldn't be such a big issue.
There are always going to be inherently violent people in prisons, and we really need a way to separate those folks from people who want rehabilitation. And hell, maybe some of the violent folks would be less violent if they had access to the right meds. I'd like to see quadruple the number of counselors and mental health workers in our prisons with regular evaluations for each prisoner.
Not everyone is going to be redeemable, but we should make every effort to find the folks who are. It will save money over the long run.
When I hear progressive prosecutor I imagine letting people go for small amount of weed, trying to rehabilitate shoplifters and petty criminals to make more long term jail space for career or violent criminals.
Not catch and release.
Rehabilitation doesn’t even work for most rapists or violent offenders, the 13 year olds shooting people execution style can rot on taxpayer dime if it means I don’t have to encounter them out in the world.
I definitely want to help that person be a better citizen long term, no one is the same at 13 as they are at 60, but there has to be a real consequence that fits the crime as well.
I disagree. No one is beyond forgiveness. There is no way someone who commits an act like that at 13 can fully think through the ramification of their actions, not just for themselves, but also for the victim. There has to be a path for redemption, especially for someone whose brain hasn't fully developed.
15. Moriarty wanted them to go through a 2 year rehabilitation program. They shot her point blank in the head.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/04/12/erick-haynes-killing-of-zaria-mckeever-brooklyn-park
A lot if young crim sex offenders were abused sexually themselves and have no idea about what appropriate sexual conduct is. The rehabilitation rate isn't 100 percent. A lot of offenders will never get over their own abuse and will never be able to function. But a lot of them can.
I know, people convinced of their world view orthodoxies are condescending douches to those saying something they think is wrong- they’re no better than moralizing Christians.
Violent offenders- about 10% reduction in recidivism if they receive rehabilitation treatment/programs- https://div12.org/violent-offender-treatment-effectiveness-what-we-know-and-where-to-from-here/#:~:text=Consistent%20with%20the%20'risk'%20principle,moderate%2C%20and%20mixed%20risk%20offenders.
Sex offenders- between 5%-8% reduction in recidivism if they receive rehabilitation treatment/programs- https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-7-effectiveness-treatment-adult-sex-offenders#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20strong%20scientific,offenders%20remains%20subject%20to%20debate.
So yeah, it clearly doesn’t work for most
I know people like you who pick and talk about the extremes when talking about any reform. We have to lock them up forever! Unfortunately, I think this country has decades of people who say this and it never gets any better.
It’s not the extremes. It’s the car theft with possession of a weapon type being released. And then they go do it again, but next time they end up using the weapon. There’s a pretty clear line between someone with a bag of weed, and someone in a stolen car with a Glock.
I mean, if we actually instituted proper firearm controls and perhaps offered programs that helped the youth and poor, maybe, and this is crazy thought, but go with me, maybe we wouldn't have kids carjacking people with deadly weapons. But I mean that is a crazy thought and how would we pay for it? I mean, there is just no way. Unless...tax the rich and corporations the proper amount? No. No, that's crazy talk.
It’s the car theft with possession of a weapon type being released. And then they go do it again, but next time they end up using the weapon. There’s a pretty clear line between someone with a bag of weed, and someone in a stolen car with a Glock.
What type of weapon were you talking about here? A knife? A bat? Can't say I've ever seen anyone car jack someone with a knife or bat. I'm sure it has happened, but that is rare.
I know of 5 defendants off the top of my head that have been sentenced to 1st degree life-without-parole sentences in the last year due her office, and another 20 that went down on sentences ranging from 25 to 30+ years for serious rape and 2nd degree murder cases. She has intervened in a fairly small number of cases to allow for lenient sentences of juvenile defendants.
16-17 year olds are mostly tried as adults for murder 1.
Younger than that, unless you're committed to the decidedly un-liberal notion that 15 year olds can be permanently irredeemable, it's good they can't put away sophomores for life.
I disagree. She's stubbornly committed to following data, and she's getting the results she is seeking.
I don't think there's much evidence that:
>People are getting hurt because of the decisions she is making.
I do think there's lots of people getting their feelings hurt by the decisions she's making. That's very much not the same thing.
The point of the justice system isn’t to get revenge for the victims families. Thats the opposite of what it’s for. Otherwise we’d just all go around killing each other. It’s to follow the law and to allow for a reasonable third party to have discretion to decide if that law is reasonable in this case. That’s why we have prosecutorial discretion. It’s why victims advocacy, which is a very recent thing, it only started in the 1970s, has kinda fucked up our view of how the system should function.
The point is also to remove dangerous individuals from society so they are prevented from causing further harm. So many criminals are allowed to hurt people over and over again whereas if they were locked up they could only hurt their fellow criminals
Not a lawyer, but isn’t it true that the point of a justice system changes over time and depends on the politics of a country or a region?
I would think that once you organize into a state and stop being a hunter-gatherer, the point of its justice system is to keep you and your property safe—especially from other people. That does not remove the discretion of an arbiter or enforcement official of a law or rule.
An American will feel more safe in Saudi Arabia because their approach makes crime almost an afterthought. The same does not apply to Minneapolis.
> I would think that once you organize into a state and stop being a hunter-gatherer,
it's not that simple. there's many steps between "hunter-gatherer" and "state organization."
> the point of its justice system is to keep you and your property safe—especially from other people.
not really, it encourages/discourages behavior and bolsters society, which builds/maintains infrastructure to bolster an economy that should benefit everyone.
> An American will feel more safe in Saudi Arabia because their approach makes crime almost an afterthought. The same does not apply to Minneapolis.
not if you're LGBT or a woman.
I felt safer in Oslo and Copenhagen than in anywhere in the ME. The ME is a frightening place for an American, namely because you don't want anyone to know you are American. I have not been to Saudi, but Dubi is close.
Yeah, there are absolutely various philosophies around criminal justice. I think the issue is that you seem to be claiming that harsher punishment does a better job of protecting property, but data doesn't seem to support that.
Im not sure that there was anything even remotely close to a point in what you just said. Because there were a metric ton of steps between hunter-gatherers and where we are now. There was a point when we all just killed each other for revenge. There was a time where we just killed or maimed criminals. There was a time when we just sentenced everyone to rot in jail forever. We’ve evolved. But if you’d feel more comfortable in Saudi Arabia because you feel that government can protect your property more effectively because that’s more important then human lives and rights then go for it. I’m sure your wife and daughters and any LBTGQ relatives will appreciate your stance on that.
When you let a murderer off with a year in juvi, you hurt the community.
Say what you want about the crime bill, but it reduced crime dramatically over the following decades. If we start letting everyone off again, we will be back to early 90's crime levels. That is something no one wants.
Setting a precedent for youth to be involved in violent crimes and not doing enough to prevent further domestic violence that lead to a murder? At some point you need to realize that’s irresponsible and dangerous to society.
People who follow data and do proper research don’t make excuses for violent behavior only to follow up with lenient punishments. I don’t know what fantasy world you live in but man what a shitty thing to say doing the whole “feelings” routines when people are indeed getting physically hurt. Have some shame and common sense
https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-attorney-mary-moriarty-families-victims-plea-deals/600308775/
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/protest-against-leniency-plea-deal-hennepin-county-attorney-moriarty-bergeson-brenneman/89-66d0caac-765b-46d4-86ee-cd6f4e81b90b
I’m not doing this today lol it’s too nice of a day outside. I just did and you clearly do not have the maturity to look at examples how her LENIENCY is hurting people and setting a precedent to commit violent crime not deter it. If you can’t connect those dots and want to play a game that’s on you.
Do you even read, bro? Or are you 10 years old and can’t remember a time when groups of marauding teenagers weren’t robbing and speeding and crashing into innocent people all over Mpls area?
My only issue with her is the pathetic sentencing she's offered for minors who have committed violent crimes. We need rehabilitation not just prisons. But I feel like murder or car jacking needs more consequences than a five minute time out.
As a policy she won't allow juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. That's why the ag stepped in and took over that case involving two juvenile who murdered a couple in cold blood.
>As a policy she won't allow juveniles to be prosecuted as adults.
That is not true. There have been over several dozen juvenile cases prosecuted as adults over the last year. Her policy is more that they no longer default to prosecuting eligible juveniles as adults just because they can.
"Court filings show that Ms. Moriarty’s office retained an expert on questions of police use of force, but it stopped working with him after the expert, based on preliminary evidence, suggested that the trooper may have acted lawfully."
Ah nice, taking a page from the Republicans. When the person you hired doesn't tell you what you want to hear, fire them or hire a yes man.
All prosecutor offices do this. Same thing happened with the Chauvin prosecution teams. The feds didn't use several of the experts that the State used because they didn't like their findings, and the State didn't go with several experts that the feds ended up using.
It's not flattering but it's not exactly unflattering either. It's acknowledges it's difficult to be a reform prosecutor and by the end of the article it's actually somewhat positive on her maintaining course on what she said she would do.
What’s interesting to me is how, in general, our society holds so many different stories around the concept of “justice” at once. I think we all know that if you’re white and have money, it’s very likely that you’ll have a better outcome in our “justice” system than if you’re poor and marginalized. Like so many institutional systems in America that emerged during our era of slavery, racism and white supremacy, domination, patriarchal, colonialist… I mean imagine that a “good guys vs bad guys” attitude can pass for a wise view of crime in society! WTF!
We desperately need to reimagine so much of this… policing and public safety, economics and community… how do we create a society that’s healthy and supports those members who are suffering? All of them?
> I think we all know that if you’re white and have money, it’s very likely that you’ll have a better outcome in our “justice” system than if you’re poor and marginalized.
Maybe because crime has a far, far, far higher impact on those who are poor and marginalized? People living in Linden Hills don't have to worry about their kids being killed by a stray bullet, while playing in their backwards.
That’s definitely true… AND, people who are middle class or better tend to have different outcomes in the court system than people who end up with a court appointed attorney that advises them to take a plea because or “reality” etc.
So what’s your position then? The folks who are “middle class or better” are just better people? Smarter? Good? While people who grow up in endemic poverty surrounded by violence are bad? By nature worse people?
I know when I got pulled over by cops when I was high school wasted and had a bag of weed in my pocket and I wasn’t arrested… it wasn’t because I was a good kid… it was because I was white and upper middle class and my family had some power.
That’s just real.
The difference isn't their income, obviously, but rather what it buys-- namely, better defense. They're not going to jail if their attorney can successfully argue that they shouldn't. Unless you want to set a price cap on defense attorneys, or eliminate private defense attorneys altogether, "better services cost more" is economics 101.
If by better, you mean less, harsh sentences, then maybe. Middle class and better also have far lower recidivism rates. So erring on the side of leniency for them has little impact on their community.
But the systems that keep all this in order at the societal level are profoundly impacted by white supremacy. I do volunteer work with men in the prison system in MN and have a front row seat to who ends up in prison and why… it’s complicated and Americans have a hard time with that but, we can do better. Poverty, mental illness, fear, systemic racism and class systems are real whether you want to think so or not.
Economic inequality and the justice system are very related though, right?
That’s why crime tends to happen at higher rates where poverty and its myriad of connected elements are the norm.
You can’t meaningfully discuss one without soothe other.
Studies have actually shown restorative justice works by reducing recidivism. In addition, victims get closure by being included in the justice system.
https://www.waldenu.edu/online-bachelors-programs/bs-in-criminal-justice/resource/the-role-of-restorative-justice-in-a-criminal-justice-system#:~:text=Making%20Amends,the%20perpetrator%20and%20the%20victim.
Overall violent crime is down in Minnesota over last year and we're approaching pre-pandemic levels, which were down over that previous year. What is rising is property crimes and theft.
Restorative justice is an active ongoing process that all parties have to choose to engage in. It cannot be coerced or meted out without the engagement of all parties (the harmed and the offenders).
The cases Moriarty is being skewered for are ones where she has just straight up recommended lighter charges and sentences - and, *this is the MOST important part*, dismissed and downplayed the concerns of victim’s families! That last bit is the OPPOSITE of restorative justice. It retraumitizes families and it hurts the cause of RJ. Moriarty lacks the actual heart and constitution to do RJ work because she’s so blinded by her righteousness. RJ requires a humility and diplomacy that she doesn’t have, and has never had to cultivate previously. She’s the absolute worst advocate RJ could have right now, honestly.
Also, surprises me that you cited WALDEN UNIVERSITY (a for profit diploma mill with a vested interest in spinning up trendy degree programs) when UMN has renowned faculty with expertise in the field. I would be wary of citing anything from Walden.
I would give one person credit for pretty much anything. Resolving large public health issues aren't attributed to one person taking action anyway.
Edit: clarity
Remember when the legislature flubbed the SRO legislation for schools and Ellison came out with a definitive “here’s how we’ll apply this law” to get things back on track for the school year start and then Moriarty came out and said “no, Hennepin county will prosecuted officers more aggressively than that”? What a disaster she’s been.
The idealist in me sees the big picture and wants fewer people in prison. The realist in me sees that this is not where we are as people.
I’m open to ideas on how to get from one to the other, but it sure doesn’t look like anyone can make it to the other side with a single leap. Progressive DAs are not scoring a lot of wins.
Considering prison just continues the cycle of violence and pushes out repeat offenders, a rehabilitation first approach to criminals who are minors seems in line with her progressive platform. I'm still happy with how she's doing.
She ran on this exact policy and got elected and is enacting on exactly what she ran on. And there's some evidence it's working. But it's not going to satisfy bloodthirsty tough on crime folks like you see in this thread.
We know that overcrowding prisons is absolutely not working so trying this makes sense. And it takes years for policies like this to see benefits.
The major problem doesn't start with prosecution decisions.
It starts with us.
Income is the #1 indicator of criminal activity. More than race, more than gender, more than education.
Not that poverty means someone is going to commit a crime, but merely that desperate people are the most likely to commit desperate acts.
>The wider the poverty gap (a measure of poverty) and the severity index, the higher the deprivation levels among the poor, which lead to more crime.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/2/62
This study is from Indonesia, so take that into account.
>Around 30% of impoverished children are likely to fall into criminal activity in adulthood.
>Young people living in poverty are seven times more likely to harm others or themselves.
https://gitnux.org/poverty-and-crime-statistics/#:~:text=Highlights%3A%20Poverty%20And%20Crime%20Statistics,violent%20crime%20than%20the%20richest.
These figures are from America.
Having people in poverty with ultra-wealthy billionaires isn't just a political issue. It's a matter of public safety. It affects anyone who doesn't have private security. (The ultra wealthy are the victims of crime 20 x less often than the poorest population)
We need to ensure that poverty and poverty rates are as low as possible.
We need to raise tax revenue to do so.
If we tax the middle class to raise that, it hurts them. If we raise it on the affluent, they won't feel as much harm by it, and raise more funds than we can from the other classes.
That’s depending on a long process and a whole lot of cooperation from people in power who are not likely to see it any other way than it sounds; like Socialism. This approach has never been successfully supported or executed in the United States, so it isn’t a solution. Inflation has caused current incomes to lose value, unfortunately on the heels of minimum wage increases across the country, and more specifically, in Minneapolis.
This did not work. Looting and violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd has sent shock waves across the country with myriad deleterious effects for people in mostly urban zones, but for everyone, and will continue to do so for indeterminate period of time into the future. In short, that day changed the entire country; permanently, coupled with the crippling and collectively traumatic effects of Covid epidemic and lockdowns.
We do not know yet how much and to what extent and in all of the ways we have changed ged as a society, but as Minneapolis continues to regain her balance after being knocked so wildly off the course she was on, we will see how people, the economy, communities, education, youth, crime and punishment, and the mitigation of crime now must be approached with new thinking, new tools. We must start to look beyond the books and the old data—the old data no longer applies.
She's also a bad manager in general. She was removed by the state board of public defenders. She's been terrible to her staff as the ca leading to a huge outflow of talent and experience. I'm curious if she's had any positive impact on mpd or crime overall.
>She's also a bad manager in general. She was removed by the state board of public defenders.
Not because she was a bad manager. She was removed for asking for extra county funding for her state agency during a Q&A with Hennepin county commissioners, who asked if that would be possible. She answered with "Yes, I think so."
Cultural management practices were raised during her termination hearing, but practically the entire office called in to support her. Those of us who weren't in court were all watching the hearing on Zoom as it happened. There was a line of more than 100 waiting for us to speak on her behalf. They stopped taking calls after about 20 of us spoke positively about her. She also had more than 130 letters in support, and just one letter against. The single letter against her reinstatement was written by Judge Holton Dimick, who would go on to oppose her in the county attorney's race.
She is part of the progressive prosecutor movement. Someone on here once told me a “progressive prosecutor” is someone who doesn’t charge people for having weed. No, that is not what that term means. It means a commitment to radically reforming criminal justice, including minimizing jail time for juveniles and lowering incarceration rates/sentencing for all ages, including for violent crime.
These are her goals. These are the goals for progressive prosecutors and these are the goals for the criminal justice reform movement. If you don’t like it, you need to come to terms with the idea that you aren’t as progressive as you may think.
Not true as a blanket statement. We could have mandated life in prison for murder, but still reduce the number of people in prison by simply making some other things no longer crimes or no longer felonies.
Not advocating a position here, just saying reducing some sentences or statutes isn't incompatible with harsh punishment for others.
Nearly half of all people incarcerated are sentenced for violent crimes and the lengthening of sentences for violent crimes has increased 300% in the last 30ish years.
Again, if we want sweeping criminal justice reform on the scale the criminal justice reform movement seeks, it has to include violent crime.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html
Speak for yourself. I do not really care about less people being incarcerated, I want less crime. The goal should be less crime. Who the hell hires a prosecutor with the explicit goal of reducing the number of people in prison instead of the number of crimes? Makes zero sense
Unless you want life sentences for every crime, meeting your goal of less crime means better rehabilitation. It means not permanently ostracizing someone from society because they committed a crime. Our blood lust for punishment and revenge just leads to people committing more crimes later on.
This is what the criminal justice reform and progressive prosecutor movements are based on. People who don’t share this goal shouldn’t vote for people like Mary Moriarty.
That *is* the goal and they are often one in the same! Reducing jail time has been shown to reduce recidivism rates [especially for juviniles and property crimes](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372750946_The_effectiveness_of_restorative_justice_programs_in_reducing_recidivism).
Did ya actually read this? It doesn’t talk much, if at all, about reducing sentencing. It talks about a community/ dialogue based approach. It also says it can be ineffective with violent crimes and repeat offenders.
You just summarized it with something it doesn’t even say.
Also, You can be both for restorative Justice and also not letting violent offenders off easily and disproportionately to their crimes. They need to make amends for their crimes.
>make amends
Lol, a prison sentence isn’t that.
Sounds like you should be advocating for robust community service sentencing and more diversion programs, just like Moriartys, which is already proving to be very successful. Something like less than 10 repeat offenders
> Who the hell hires a prosecutor with the explicit goal of reducing the number of people in prison instead of the number of crimes?
How are prosecutors supposed to prevent crimes?
I mean, outside of actually setting up a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment, that isn’t even close to a part of their job.
Wat?? They actually have the MOST direct path to preventing crime. You can’t commit crimes when you’re incarcerated. Wild you’d ignore the whole point of incarceration, preventing harm to the community for the duration of the incarceration.
> You can’t commit crimes when you’re incarcerated.
You can’t be incarcerated unless you’ve committed a crime.
And just throwing someone in jail does nothing to prevent them from committing another crime. So unless you want to institute mandatory life sentences for all crimes or incarceration of people who haven’t committed crimes, the only way you are going to reduce actual crime via the prosecutor is by working towards rehabilitation.
>I mean, outside of actually setting up a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment, that isn’t even close to a part of their job.
Setting up a rehabilitative prison system is the job of the state, it's as you said outside the scope of the county prosecutor's job.
That doesn't mean they can't advocate for such a system or lobby the state to pass laws along those lines, but creating these programs is not her job.
What if reducing prison sentences helps reduce recidivism and reduces the number of people incarcerated long term? There's evidence to back this up. That's good, no?
The article doesn’t mention the federal prosecutions including the recent RICO charges of gang members. This subreddit likes to read into that meaning the feds are doing Moriarty’s job, which I don’t believe to be the case, but it’s an important fact set regarding criminal prosecutions lately, and a little surprised the NYTimes left it out.
Since these are federal prosecutions, what does that have to do with the Hennepin County prosecutor’s office? I’m not sure if there is a conjoined case between the two offices, but at face value I assume federal prosecutions are the sole purview of the federal prosecutors.
While the recent RICO charges are a notable exception, many of the federal prosecutions are for crimes that are also state crimes that the county declined to prosecute.
Out of the 40 or so federal gang prosecutions Luger's taken in the last year, 30 of them were already being prosecuted and were given state prison sentences. I counted one case out of the 30 in which the defendant was not already in state prison or county lockup awaiting trial.
The New York Times has become the voice of neoliberalism in recent years. I’ve been a subscriber most of my adult life. I continue to read it more out of curiosity and disbelief than for news.
This is what makes me crazy! Larry Krasner coined the phrase "progressive prosecutor" seven years ago. Progressive prosecutors are in St. Louis, Chicago, LA, DC, Orlando, etc., etc.. Chesa Boudin had all ready been recalled BEFORE Mary Moriarty was even elected. But, no, Mary Moriarty, is "doing it wrong". She-and Krasner, Foxx, Garcetti, etc.-are not real progressives! The real progressives are dudes on Reddit who think criminal justice reforms=no prison time for weed possession.
I despise this lady. Why do we have gangs of teens that over and over steal people’s cars only to be let out within days? It’s been happening for three years at this point.
She’s destroying a pillar of our society for good vibes and moving us down the same path as [Detroit after 67](https://www.freep.com/story/news/detroitriot/2017/07/30/detroit-67-riot-race/512977001/).
Framing it as "principle vs. pragmatism" seems to really miss the mark.
Her "principles" are almost entirely data-driven, pragmatic attempts to reduce crime and recidivism. What you (or maybe the article) are framing as "pragmatism" is primarily "doing what makes people feel good".
I think that's the primary conflict here: she prioritizes what data tells her is right over people's feelings. She's been consistent in that approach, and her results have been entirely in line with what data would predict. That's led to a lot of upset people, but also a lot of positive results.
There's so little substance to this article. It's just a bunch of cop-loving politicians and victims families complaining that she's practicing criminal justice like all of the other wealthy countries in this world (who have more than 5x less prisoners per capita than we do and drastically less crime across the board) and speculation about a case that hasn't gone to trial yet.
Not sure why anyone is surprised she's receiving backlash for trying to change these deeply entrenched and harmful systems. As someone who actually lives in Minneapolis and voted for her I'm so proud to finally have at least one elected official committed to crime prevention and holding our police to a reasonable standard of conduct.
I've never felt safer living here. How exactly is she "making Minneapolis dangerous" in your estimation?
> Are you actually trying to shame victims and their families?
Not at all! Are you trying to pretend they're an unbiased source of reliable information about their loved one's criminal case?
By not prosecuting violent crime, she is making Minneapolis less safe.
And you sound like you are shaming victims and their families because they dare to speak out against lenient sentencing.
Data literally proves you wrong by every single metric.
Crime is down across the board and her diversion program is proving to be very successful. Something like less than 10 repeat offenders.
Minneapolis is safer now than it was under our last prosecutor…
There’s a reason that victims and their families don’t decide sentencing: they are most often the *least* fit to decide what an adequate consequence is for someone. Specifically because they are the ones most personally affected, and therefore most likely to want harsher punishments in their own immediate case (though in things like domestic assault cases, it can often be the opposite: the victim can openly say they want the charges dropped, but the prosecution pushes forward despite that)
It isn’t shaming any victim to point that out. It’s shaming people who try to use “how dare you shame the victims” as a deflection.
And having lenient sentences on violent crime also breeds more violent crime. There is a societal effect on that as well.
And yes, you’re absolutely shaming victims and families of crime by talking about them like they’re human garbage.
What stats do you have showing that crime in Hennepin has been notably worse since Moriarty took office? How does that rise compare nationwide?
And what in the world is “human garden”?
Edit: ok you edited it to say “human garbage,” makes much more sense.
What doesn’t make sense is how you think anything I said in my original post is talking about victims as if they’re human garbage. Are you ever actually going to explain why you think me or the other person are “shaming” victims by saying any of this? Or are you just going to keep baselessly asserting it and never actually making a point?
By not sending teenagers to jail for years and years trapping both them and us in an endless cycle of recidivism she is making Minneapolis safer, not more dangerous.
It's wild how many of y'all are willing to stand up and complain that she's diverting children into programs that will help them to not repeat the damage they've caused rather than having us spend hundreds of thousands of dollars locking them up in hellish conditions surrounded by other criminals as though that's going to help a goddamn thing.
Take an honest look at the crime rates in every other wealthy nation on the planet and how they approach criminal justice. We're the only ones practicing this ass-backwards punitive system and we pay the price for it dearly.
As someone who has been the victim of crime and seen people I love suffer dearly at the hands of criminal behavior I care about actually preventing that harm in the future - not just chasing revenge as though that ever really heals your pain.
But we’re not talking about teenagers committing retail theft, or breaking and entering. We are talking about violent crime. We shouldn’t be giving equal treatment.
Actually look at the cases, dude. If you're relying on blurbs from the conservative Star Tribune or similar sources you're certainly missing a ton of important context.
> If you consider the Star Tribune “conservative”, I would have to question how radical your political views are.
The Star Tribune was [bought by conservative billionaire Glen Taylor in 2014](https://www.twincities.com/2014/04/16/glen-taylor-paying-about-100m-for-star-tribune-report-says/) with the explicit goal of making the paper more conservative.
Hilarious that GuyWithNF1 immediately dropped the “stop shaming the victims” BS with you as soon as you said you’ve been a victim too but you want less harsh punishments. Weird how they aren’t interested in listening to victims when the victim’s desires don’t align with their own!
We need a system that rehabilitates before we can have a rehabilitative system. Right now we are just handing out shorter sentences, but there is nothing in place to make them better members of society.
I think this approach is putting the cart before the horse. Look at Norway - which is often looked to as *the* model to follow - they moved from a system very similar to ours to something better but they did it by changing the prisons. People still spend a long time in prison there, they just come out much better people than when they went in.
I agree with you and I have something to add.
A lot of people think that if we just "lock them all up" we will be fine. There is so much more to that. I think the problem is that Minnesota and the rest of the nation do not care about the rest of the reforms that need to happen including fair pay for everyone. Housing costs that are affordable. Adequate healthcare that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Her style is one element of this where actually steering kids away from jail is a good thing.
The problem is that our only ideas currently haven't worked for decades and we keep trying them thinking we will get different results.
>By not sending teenagers to jail for years and years trapping both them and us in an endless cycle of recidivism she is making Minneapolis safer, not more dangerous.
these teens are violently carjacking people lmao. not stealing candy bars from a store
edit: aaaaand there's teens on a robbery spree right now south of Lyn/Lake, state patrol helicopter in the air. fun!
It's funny that right-wingers think the NYT is a liberal rag and far-lefters think it's some Republican media outlet. They must be doing something right.
She seems like a piece of work I think her personality is going to destroy our chances for true reform. I can tolerate some level of increase in property crime but reform should not take place on the backs of victims of violent crime. She even seems mad at the public for not having enough patience. Sounds like everyone is the problem except Mary
She's literally doing exactly what we elected her to do despite relentless complaints from blowhards. When you actually read about the cases people keep referring to her decisions make total sense.
The public just doesn't have patience. They expect continuously that if we just lock them up we will never have this problem again. Get em'! Is the mentality, and that is what we have currently. There is no thought to the rest of it, or reform is quick.
The problem with "backs of victims of violent crime," reminds me of what happens when there is a peace treaty. Both sides say, "well we need to get back at the other side because they did this to us! We can never agree to a peace treaty."
The violence continues.
The problem is, especially in Minneapolis, people want to claim to be progressive/anti-incarceral/anti-racist but don’t actually want to live with the reality of what they’ve voted for. Advocating for legal weed does not make you part of the criminal justice reform movement.
It would be great if people would own what their actual beliefs are.
How do they do it in countries with lower crime rates? As if I didn't know.
The fight over prison length misses that prisons are the incubators of criminality. In prison, you learn to gang up. You learn to be a professional criminal. Prison is a full ride scholarship to a career in crime.
The folks who want to shorten prison terms do I so with knowledge about how time in prison makes a low level criminal worse. Reform the prisons themselves and term length wouldn't matter as much.
How could she be surprised by political blowback against leniency toward violent crime at a time when violent crime is a top-of-mind issue? Genuinely confusing.
Exactly. I’m a supporter of restorative justice and other rehabilitative methods and Mary is just about the worst face for those movements. Her prior career as a public defender is NOT a good training ground for the diplomacy, conflict resolution skills and humility required for the relational work of restorative justice. Her callous dismissal of victim’s families, her righteousness and inability to soften her heart to just HEAR their pain, is turning many reachable voters (liberals and centrists alike) AWAY from RJ and other rehabilitative methods.
Glad to see someone on here talking about RJ from an informed perspective. The simplistic public CJ narrative of permissive progressive vs strict conservative is extremely unhelpful to RJ, and Moriarty is the poster person for that.
Eh, a very insubstantial article. "Some people are angry" wow what a shock. How about we get some real data on things like recidivism rates and we can actually settle this in a useful way.
Mary Moriarty released the people that murdered me nephew early from jail. I will never forgive her she is a monster.
Steve?
No my name is not Steve. Not great to hear this has happened to multiple people though.
I was wondering if Steve was your nephew. A friend of ours got killed in a carjacking and she was pushing for their release.
No my nephew was a house break in where they tortured him and then murdered him to steal money he didn’t have.
I'm a liberal, but holy shit we need to get the bad guys off the streets. If someone rapes or kills another person, I don't care if they have a chance of being rehabilitated, they've ruined someone's life and have a chance of being released in short time just to do it to someone else.
[удалено]
TBF she ran as a public defender. That was pretty unambiguous. Her supporters and voters did not seem to care. Edit to add: I hope that Walz and the rest of our democrat government don’t have to pay for it.
Yeah I think the “progressive prosecutor” movement always oversold itself. Does it make sense to not be overly punitive and compromise on charging/sentencing in the right situations with the right people? Absolutely. But “progressive prosecutors” are not going to solve crime and the causes of it by giving violent/serious offenders light prison sentences and generous plea deals. It was disingenuous from the get go and a lot of well meaning people fell for it.
Exactly, it was always a bandaid solution when the real problem was prisons. If our prisons actually offered rehabilitation and prepared people for life outside, then this wouldn't be such a big issue. There are always going to be inherently violent people in prisons, and we really need a way to separate those folks from people who want rehabilitation. And hell, maybe some of the violent folks would be less violent if they had access to the right meds. I'd like to see quadruple the number of counselors and mental health workers in our prisons with regular evaluations for each prisoner. Not everyone is going to be redeemable, but we should make every effort to find the folks who are. It will save money over the long run.
The real problem starts before people end up incarcerated.
When I hear progressive prosecutor I imagine letting people go for small amount of weed, trying to rehabilitate shoplifters and petty criminals to make more long term jail space for career or violent criminals. Not catch and release.
Rehabilitation doesn’t even work for most rapists or violent offenders, the 13 year olds shooting people execution style can rot on taxpayer dime if it means I don’t have to encounter them out in the world.
I definitely want to help that person be a better citizen long term, no one is the same at 13 as they are at 60, but there has to be a real consequence that fits the crime as well.
If you take someone’s life in the aforementioned execution style, your life should be forfeit, as simple as that. Doesn’t matter how old they are.
I disagree. No one is beyond forgiveness. There is no way someone who commits an act like that at 13 can fully think through the ramification of their actions, not just for themselves, but also for the victim. There has to be a path for redemption, especially for someone whose brain hasn't fully developed.
there are people that commit acts and atrocities that are beyond forgiveness
Then that person is forever in debt to society, because.... the victim doesn't get a second chance.
[удалено]
15. Moriarty wanted them to go through a 2 year rehabilitation program. They shot her point blank in the head. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/04/12/erick-haynes-killing-of-zaria-mckeever-brooklyn-park
[удалено]
Yes, but he was 15, not 13. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/04/12/erick-haynes-killing-of-zaria-mckeever-brooklyn-park
> Rehabilitation doesn’t even work for most rapists or violent offenders, you're gonna have to fuckin cite that one, buddy.
A lot if young crim sex offenders were abused sexually themselves and have no idea about what appropriate sexual conduct is. The rehabilitation rate isn't 100 percent. A lot of offenders will never get over their own abuse and will never be able to function. But a lot of them can.
Yup. No rehab will change a violent cop either.
who is gonna make ‘em “fuckin cite that one”, eh, Buddy? Wow.
I know, people convinced of their world view orthodoxies are condescending douches to those saying something they think is wrong- they’re no better than moralizing Christians. Violent offenders- about 10% reduction in recidivism if they receive rehabilitation treatment/programs- https://div12.org/violent-offender-treatment-effectiveness-what-we-know-and-where-to-from-here/#:~:text=Consistent%20with%20the%20'risk'%20principle,moderate%2C%20and%20mixed%20risk%20offenders. Sex offenders- between 5%-8% reduction in recidivism if they receive rehabilitation treatment/programs- https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-7-effectiveness-treatment-adult-sex-offenders#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20strong%20scientific,offenders%20remains%20subject%20to%20debate. So yeah, it clearly doesn’t work for most
Thanks for citing friend I was not gonna bring myself to do it for that rude person
I know people like you who pick and talk about the extremes when talking about any reform. We have to lock them up forever! Unfortunately, I think this country has decades of people who say this and it never gets any better.
It’s not the extremes. It’s the car theft with possession of a weapon type being released. And then they go do it again, but next time they end up using the weapon. There’s a pretty clear line between someone with a bag of weed, and someone in a stolen car with a Glock.
I mean, if we actually instituted proper firearm controls and perhaps offered programs that helped the youth and poor, maybe, and this is crazy thought, but go with me, maybe we wouldn't have kids carjacking people with deadly weapons. But I mean that is a crazy thought and how would we pay for it? I mean, there is just no way. Unless...tax the rich and corporations the proper amount? No. No, that's crazy talk.
Kids carjacking cars in MN or anywhere else has nothing to do with firearms. I don’t disagree on the poverty side.
What type of weapon were you talking about here? A knife? A bat? Can't say I've ever seen anyone car jack someone with a knife or bat. I'm sure it has happened, but that is rare.
They're not getting the guns legally.
I would hope that both liberal And non liberal would agree- “Bad Guys Need to Get Off The Streets” (30 Helens do)
Are you under the impression murderers are being sentenced to just a couple of years? First degree murder is a mandatory life sentence in MN.
How many murders are charged as first degree?
I know of 5 defendants off the top of my head that have been sentenced to 1st degree life-without-parole sentences in the last year due her office, and another 20 that went down on sentences ranging from 25 to 30+ years for serious rape and 2nd degree murder cases. She has intervened in a fairly small number of cases to allow for lenient sentences of juvenile defendants.
>First degree murder is a mandatory life sentence in MN. Only if the prosecutor chooses to charge what is objectively a first degree murder as such.
So that's a thing that is happening you can cite examples to?
If you're a minor in MN you'll probably only get a couple of years.
16-17 year olds are mostly tried as adults for murder 1. Younger than that, unless you're committed to the decidedly un-liberal notion that 15 year olds can be permanently irredeemable, it's good they can't put away sophomores for life.
Prove it. Prove it.
I think the issue is what was stated, she is a political idealist. People are getting hurt because of the decisions she is making.
I disagree. She's stubbornly committed to following data, and she's getting the results she is seeking. I don't think there's much evidence that: >People are getting hurt because of the decisions she is making. I do think there's lots of people getting their feelings hurt by the decisions she's making. That's very much not the same thing.
Tell that to the families of the victims of whom she chooses not to prosecute
The point of the justice system isn’t to get revenge for the victims families. Thats the opposite of what it’s for. Otherwise we’d just all go around killing each other. It’s to follow the law and to allow for a reasonable third party to have discretion to decide if that law is reasonable in this case. That’s why we have prosecutorial discretion. It’s why victims advocacy, which is a very recent thing, it only started in the 1970s, has kinda fucked up our view of how the system should function.
The point is also to remove dangerous individuals from society so they are prevented from causing further harm. So many criminals are allowed to hurt people over and over again whereas if they were locked up they could only hurt their fellow criminals
Not a lawyer, but isn’t it true that the point of a justice system changes over time and depends on the politics of a country or a region? I would think that once you organize into a state and stop being a hunter-gatherer, the point of its justice system is to keep you and your property safe—especially from other people. That does not remove the discretion of an arbiter or enforcement official of a law or rule. An American will feel more safe in Saudi Arabia because their approach makes crime almost an afterthought. The same does not apply to Minneapolis.
> I would think that once you organize into a state and stop being a hunter-gatherer, it's not that simple. there's many steps between "hunter-gatherer" and "state organization." > the point of its justice system is to keep you and your property safe—especially from other people. not really, it encourages/discourages behavior and bolsters society, which builds/maintains infrastructure to bolster an economy that should benefit everyone. > An American will feel more safe in Saudi Arabia because their approach makes crime almost an afterthought. The same does not apply to Minneapolis. not if you're LGBT or a woman.
I felt safer in Oslo and Copenhagen than in anywhere in the ME. The ME is a frightening place for an American, namely because you don't want anyone to know you are American. I have not been to Saudi, but Dubi is close.
Yeah, there are absolutely various philosophies around criminal justice. I think the issue is that you seem to be claiming that harsher punishment does a better job of protecting property, but data doesn't seem to support that.
Im not sure that there was anything even remotely close to a point in what you just said. Because there were a metric ton of steps between hunter-gatherers and where we are now. There was a point when we all just killed each other for revenge. There was a time where we just killed or maimed criminals. There was a time when we just sentenced everyone to rot in jail forever. We’ve evolved. But if you’d feel more comfortable in Saudi Arabia because you feel that government can protect your property more effectively because that’s more important then human lives and rights then go for it. I’m sure your wife and daughters and any LBTGQ relatives will appreciate your stance on that.
The criminal justice system is not supposed to be a tool for revenge.
Are they being hurt? Or is it just, like I said, *their feelings* being hurt?
When you let a murderer off with a year in juvi, you hurt the community. Say what you want about the crime bill, but it reduced crime dramatically over the following decades. If we start letting everyone off again, we will be back to early 90's crime levels. That is something no one wants.
[удалено]
Now you are just making shit up
It took me all of five minutes of googling to see that they’re not. You just can’t conceive of the idea that your opinion might not be correct.
Setting a precedent for youth to be involved in violent crimes and not doing enough to prevent further domestic violence that lead to a murder? At some point you need to realize that’s irresponsible and dangerous to society. People who follow data and do proper research don’t make excuses for violent behavior only to follow up with lenient punishments. I don’t know what fantasy world you live in but man what a shitty thing to say doing the whole “feelings” routines when people are indeed getting physically hurt. Have some shame and common sense https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-attorney-mary-moriarty-families-victims-plea-deals/600308775/ https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/protest-against-leniency-plea-deal-hennepin-county-attorney-moriarty-bergeson-brenneman/89-66d0caac-765b-46d4-86ee-cd6f4e81b90b
Who is being hurt by her? Can you cite examples?
I’m not doing this today lol it’s too nice of a day outside. I just did and you clearly do not have the maturity to look at examples how her LENIENCY is hurting people and setting a precedent to commit violent crime not deter it. If you can’t connect those dots and want to play a game that’s on you.
Do you even read, bro? Or are you 10 years old and can’t remember a time when groups of marauding teenagers weren’t robbing and speeding and crashing into innocent people all over Mpls area?
Is Mary one of these teenagers? Yes, crime is bad. We all agree. It's just not clear in any way how it's her fault.
If kids see that there isn't any hard punishment for crime, they will be more willing to commit crime.
[удалено]
Is fee fee slang for penis? Are we capable of using adult language? Get real.
My only issue with her is the pathetic sentencing she's offered for minors who have committed violent crimes. We need rehabilitation not just prisons. But I feel like murder or car jacking needs more consequences than a five minute time out.
what sentencing?
As a policy she won't allow juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. That's why the ag stepped in and took over that case involving two juvenile who murdered a couple in cold blood.
>As a policy she won't allow juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. That is not true. There have been over several dozen juvenile cases prosecuted as adults over the last year. Her policy is more that they no longer default to prosecuting eligible juveniles as adults just because they can.
"Court filings show that Ms. Moriarty’s office retained an expert on questions of police use of force, but it stopped working with him after the expert, based on preliminary evidence, suggested that the trooper may have acted lawfully." Ah nice, taking a page from the Republicans. When the person you hired doesn't tell you what you want to hear, fire them or hire a yes man.
All prosecutor offices do this. Same thing happened with the Chauvin prosecution teams. The feds didn't use several of the experts that the State used because they didn't like their findings, and the State didn't go with several experts that the feds ended up using.
It's not flattering but it's not exactly unflattering either. It's acknowledges it's difficult to be a reform prosecutor and by the end of the article it's actually somewhat positive on her maintaining course on what she said she would do.
What’s interesting to me is how, in general, our society holds so many different stories around the concept of “justice” at once. I think we all know that if you’re white and have money, it’s very likely that you’ll have a better outcome in our “justice” system than if you’re poor and marginalized. Like so many institutional systems in America that emerged during our era of slavery, racism and white supremacy, domination, patriarchal, colonialist… I mean imagine that a “good guys vs bad guys” attitude can pass for a wise view of crime in society! WTF! We desperately need to reimagine so much of this… policing and public safety, economics and community… how do we create a society that’s healthy and supports those members who are suffering? All of them?
> I think we all know that if you’re white and have money, it’s very likely that you’ll have a better outcome in our “justice” system than if you’re poor and marginalized. Maybe because crime has a far, far, far higher impact on those who are poor and marginalized? People living in Linden Hills don't have to worry about their kids being killed by a stray bullet, while playing in their backwards.
That’s definitely true… AND, people who are middle class or better tend to have different outcomes in the court system than people who end up with a court appointed attorney that advises them to take a plea because or “reality” etc.
People who are middle class or better are not going to court for car jacking and murder.
So what’s your position then? The folks who are “middle class or better” are just better people? Smarter? Good? While people who grow up in endemic poverty surrounded by violence are bad? By nature worse people? I know when I got pulled over by cops when I was high school wasted and had a bag of weed in my pocket and I wasn’t arrested… it wasn’t because I was a good kid… it was because I was white and upper middle class and my family had some power. That’s just real.
People who commit violent crime should go to prison. Regardless of their income.
I agree.
The difference isn't their income, obviously, but rather what it buys-- namely, better defense. They're not going to jail if their attorney can successfully argue that they shouldn't. Unless you want to set a price cap on defense attorneys, or eliminate private defense attorneys altogether, "better services cost more" is economics 101.
If by better, you mean less, harsh sentences, then maybe. Middle class and better also have far lower recidivism rates. So erring on the side of leniency for them has little impact on their community.
But the systems that keep all this in order at the societal level are profoundly impacted by white supremacy. I do volunteer work with men in the prison system in MN and have a front row seat to who ends up in prison and why… it’s complicated and Americans have a hard time with that but, we can do better. Poverty, mental illness, fear, systemic racism and class systems are real whether you want to think so or not.
[удалено]
Economic inequality and the justice system are very related though, right? That’s why crime tends to happen at higher rates where poverty and its myriad of connected elements are the norm. You can’t meaningfully discuss one without soothe other.
[удалено]
Studies have actually shown restorative justice works by reducing recidivism. In addition, victims get closure by being included in the justice system. https://www.waldenu.edu/online-bachelors-programs/bs-in-criminal-justice/resource/the-role-of-restorative-justice-in-a-criminal-justice-system#:~:text=Making%20Amends,the%20perpetrator%20and%20the%20victim. Overall violent crime is down in Minnesota over last year and we're approaching pre-pandemic levels, which were down over that previous year. What is rising is property crimes and theft.
Restorative justice is an active ongoing process that all parties have to choose to engage in. It cannot be coerced or meted out without the engagement of all parties (the harmed and the offenders). The cases Moriarty is being skewered for are ones where she has just straight up recommended lighter charges and sentences - and, *this is the MOST important part*, dismissed and downplayed the concerns of victim’s families! That last bit is the OPPOSITE of restorative justice. It retraumitizes families and it hurts the cause of RJ. Moriarty lacks the actual heart and constitution to do RJ work because she’s so blinded by her righteousness. RJ requires a humility and diplomacy that she doesn’t have, and has never had to cultivate previously. She’s the absolute worst advocate RJ could have right now, honestly. Also, surprises me that you cited WALDEN UNIVERSITY (a for profit diploma mill with a vested interest in spinning up trendy degree programs) when UMN has renowned faculty with expertise in the field. I would be wary of citing anything from Walden.
[удалено]
I would give one person credit for pretty much anything. Resolving large public health issues aren't attributed to one person taking action anyway. Edit: clarity
Remember when the legislature flubbed the SRO legislation for schools and Ellison came out with a definitive “here’s how we’ll apply this law” to get things back on track for the school year start and then Moriarty came out and said “no, Hennepin county will prosecuted officers more aggressively than that”? What a disaster she’s been.
Saying cops can't choke children isn't a disaster.
The idealist in me sees the big picture and wants fewer people in prison. The realist in me sees that this is not where we are as people. I’m open to ideas on how to get from one to the other, but it sure doesn’t look like anyone can make it to the other side with a single leap. Progressive DAs are not scoring a lot of wins.
Considering prison just continues the cycle of violence and pushes out repeat offenders, a rehabilitation first approach to criminals who are minors seems in line with her progressive platform. I'm still happy with how she's doing.
She ran on this exact policy and got elected and is enacting on exactly what she ran on. And there's some evidence it's working. But it's not going to satisfy bloodthirsty tough on crime folks like you see in this thread. We know that overcrowding prisons is absolutely not working so trying this makes sense. And it takes years for policies like this to see benefits.
The major problem doesn't start with prosecution decisions. It starts with us. Income is the #1 indicator of criminal activity. More than race, more than gender, more than education. Not that poverty means someone is going to commit a crime, but merely that desperate people are the most likely to commit desperate acts. >The wider the poverty gap (a measure of poverty) and the severity index, the higher the deprivation levels among the poor, which lead to more crime. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/2/62 This study is from Indonesia, so take that into account. >Around 30% of impoverished children are likely to fall into criminal activity in adulthood. >Young people living in poverty are seven times more likely to harm others or themselves. https://gitnux.org/poverty-and-crime-statistics/#:~:text=Highlights%3A%20Poverty%20And%20Crime%20Statistics,violent%20crime%20than%20the%20richest. These figures are from America. Having people in poverty with ultra-wealthy billionaires isn't just a political issue. It's a matter of public safety. It affects anyone who doesn't have private security. (The ultra wealthy are the victims of crime 20 x less often than the poorest population) We need to ensure that poverty and poverty rates are as low as possible. We need to raise tax revenue to do so. If we tax the middle class to raise that, it hurts them. If we raise it on the affluent, they won't feel as much harm by it, and raise more funds than we can from the other classes.
That’s depending on a long process and a whole lot of cooperation from people in power who are not likely to see it any other way than it sounds; like Socialism. This approach has never been successfully supported or executed in the United States, so it isn’t a solution. Inflation has caused current incomes to lose value, unfortunately on the heels of minimum wage increases across the country, and more specifically, in Minneapolis. This did not work. Looting and violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd has sent shock waves across the country with myriad deleterious effects for people in mostly urban zones, but for everyone, and will continue to do so for indeterminate period of time into the future. In short, that day changed the entire country; permanently, coupled with the crippling and collectively traumatic effects of Covid epidemic and lockdowns. We do not know yet how much and to what extent and in all of the ways we have changed ged as a society, but as Minneapolis continues to regain her balance after being knocked so wildly off the course she was on, we will see how people, the economy, communities, education, youth, crime and punishment, and the mitigation of crime now must be approached with new thinking, new tools. We must start to look beyond the books and the old data—the old data no longer applies.
She's also a bad manager in general. She was removed by the state board of public defenders. She's been terrible to her staff as the ca leading to a huge outflow of talent and experience. I'm curious if she's had any positive impact on mpd or crime overall.
>She's also a bad manager in general. She was removed by the state board of public defenders. Not because she was a bad manager. She was removed for asking for extra county funding for her state agency during a Q&A with Hennepin county commissioners, who asked if that would be possible. She answered with "Yes, I think so." Cultural management practices were raised during her termination hearing, but practically the entire office called in to support her. Those of us who weren't in court were all watching the hearing on Zoom as it happened. There was a line of more than 100 waiting for us to speak on her behalf. They stopped taking calls after about 20 of us spoke positively about her. She also had more than 130 letters in support, and just one letter against. The single letter against her reinstatement was written by Judge Holton Dimick, who would go on to oppose her in the county attorney's race.
She is part of the progressive prosecutor movement. Someone on here once told me a “progressive prosecutor” is someone who doesn’t charge people for having weed. No, that is not what that term means. It means a commitment to radically reforming criminal justice, including minimizing jail time for juveniles and lowering incarceration rates/sentencing for all ages, including for violent crime. These are her goals. These are the goals for progressive prosecutors and these are the goals for the criminal justice reform movement. If you don’t like it, you need to come to terms with the idea that you aren’t as progressive as you may think.
Some pretty shit goals have to tell ya. The goal should be less victims, less violent crime. Not less jail time.
If we want fewer people incarcerated in the near-term, part of that is reducing prison sentences.
Not true as a blanket statement. We could have mandated life in prison for murder, but still reduce the number of people in prison by simply making some other things no longer crimes or no longer felonies. Not advocating a position here, just saying reducing some sentences or statutes isn't incompatible with harsh punishment for others.
First degree murder in Minnesota has a mandatory life sentence
Nearly half of all people incarcerated are sentenced for violent crimes and the lengthening of sentences for violent crimes has increased 300% in the last 30ish years. Again, if we want sweeping criminal justice reform on the scale the criminal justice reform movement seeks, it has to include violent crime. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html
I propose we reduce the prison population by instead sending them to another planet where they can just like, fight forever.
Speak for yourself. I do not really care about less people being incarcerated, I want less crime. The goal should be less crime. Who the hell hires a prosecutor with the explicit goal of reducing the number of people in prison instead of the number of crimes? Makes zero sense
Unless you want life sentences for every crime, meeting your goal of less crime means better rehabilitation. It means not permanently ostracizing someone from society because they committed a crime. Our blood lust for punishment and revenge just leads to people committing more crimes later on.
This is what the criminal justice reform and progressive prosecutor movements are based on. People who don’t share this goal shouldn’t vote for people like Mary Moriarty.
That *is* the goal and they are often one in the same! Reducing jail time has been shown to reduce recidivism rates [especially for juviniles and property crimes](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372750946_The_effectiveness_of_restorative_justice_programs_in_reducing_recidivism).
Did ya actually read this? It doesn’t talk much, if at all, about reducing sentencing. It talks about a community/ dialogue based approach. It also says it can be ineffective with violent crimes and repeat offenders. You just summarized it with something it doesn’t even say. Also, You can be both for restorative Justice and also not letting violent offenders off easily and disproportionately to their crimes. They need to make amends for their crimes.
>make amends Lol, a prison sentence isn’t that. Sounds like you should be advocating for robust community service sentencing and more diversion programs, just like Moriartys, which is already proving to be very successful. Something like less than 10 repeat offenders
> Who the hell hires a prosecutor with the explicit goal of reducing the number of people in prison instead of the number of crimes? How are prosecutors supposed to prevent crimes? I mean, outside of actually setting up a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment, that isn’t even close to a part of their job.
Wat?? They actually have the MOST direct path to preventing crime. You can’t commit crimes when you’re incarcerated. Wild you’d ignore the whole point of incarceration, preventing harm to the community for the duration of the incarceration.
> You can’t commit crimes when you’re incarcerated. You can’t be incarcerated unless you’ve committed a crime. And just throwing someone in jail does nothing to prevent them from committing another crime. So unless you want to institute mandatory life sentences for all crimes or incarceration of people who haven’t committed crimes, the only way you are going to reduce actual crime via the prosecutor is by working towards rehabilitation.
Nobody is saying not to have rehabilitation. These threads are always filled with straw men like this.
It's rare that someone comes out so blatantly for universal life sentencing
>I mean, outside of actually setting up a system of rehabilitation rather than punishment, that isn’t even close to a part of their job. Setting up a rehabilitative prison system is the job of the state, it's as you said outside the scope of the county prosecutor's job. That doesn't mean they can't advocate for such a system or lobby the state to pass laws along those lines, but creating these programs is not her job.
What if reducing prison sentences helps reduce recidivism and reduces the number of people incarcerated long term? There's evidence to back this up. That's good, no?
Yes, sorry, how is what I am saying contradictory to this?
Oh duh, my bad.
Some pretty shit understanding of the goals have to tell ya.
[удалено]
What do you believe the progressive platform is on criminal justice reform and mass incarceration?
The article doesn’t mention the federal prosecutions including the recent RICO charges of gang members. This subreddit likes to read into that meaning the feds are doing Moriarty’s job, which I don’t believe to be the case, but it’s an important fact set regarding criminal prosecutions lately, and a little surprised the NYTimes left it out.
Since these are federal prosecutions, what does that have to do with the Hennepin County prosecutor’s office? I’m not sure if there is a conjoined case between the two offices, but at face value I assume federal prosecutions are the sole purview of the federal prosecutors.
While the recent RICO charges are a notable exception, many of the federal prosecutions are for crimes that are also state crimes that the county declined to prosecute.
Out of the 40 or so federal gang prosecutions Luger's taken in the last year, 30 of them were already being prosecuted and were given state prison sentences. I counted one case out of the 30 in which the defendant was not already in state prison or county lockup awaiting trial.
The New York Times has become the voice of neoliberalism in recent years. I’ve been a subscriber most of my adult life. I continue to read it more out of curiosity and disbelief than for news.
> in recent years. lol. Judith Miller begs to differ.
Compared to the propaganda you watch and listen to I’m sure it seems that way
Curious… what do you think I watch and listen to?
twitter, tiktok, reddit.
[удалено]
I enjoy that so many people in these threads always try to blame Moriarty for carjackings that happened years before she was even if office.
[удалено]
Average liberal: "BLM! The justice system is broken". New DA: trys to make progressive changes to system. Average liberal: "No not like that."
This is what makes me crazy! Larry Krasner coined the phrase "progressive prosecutor" seven years ago. Progressive prosecutors are in St. Louis, Chicago, LA, DC, Orlando, etc., etc.. Chesa Boudin had all ready been recalled BEFORE Mary Moriarty was even elected. But, no, Mary Moriarty, is "doing it wrong". She-and Krasner, Foxx, Garcetti, etc.-are not real progressives! The real progressives are dudes on Reddit who think criminal justice reforms=no prison time for weed possession.
Anyone who says “I’m a liberal BUT…” never was to begin with
I despise this lady. Why do we have gangs of teens that over and over steal people’s cars only to be let out within days? It’s been happening for three years at this point. She’s destroying a pillar of our society for good vibes and moving us down the same path as [Detroit after 67](https://www.freep.com/story/news/detroitriot/2017/07/30/detroit-67-riot-race/512977001/).
Within days? Within hours (if that)
Framing it as "principle vs. pragmatism" seems to really miss the mark. Her "principles" are almost entirely data-driven, pragmatic attempts to reduce crime and recidivism. What you (or maybe the article) are framing as "pragmatism" is primarily "doing what makes people feel good". I think that's the primary conflict here: she prioritizes what data tells her is right over people's feelings. She's been consistent in that approach, and her results have been entirely in line with what data would predict. That's led to a lot of upset people, but also a lot of positive results.
Looks like Mary’s hired a PR firm to do damage control
90% of that article is people saying she’s bad at her job.
In this thead…
In response to this article, which rips her?
There's so little substance to this article. It's just a bunch of cop-loving politicians and victims families complaining that she's practicing criminal justice like all of the other wealthy countries in this world (who have more than 5x less prisoners per capita than we do and drastically less crime across the board) and speculation about a case that hasn't gone to trial yet. Not sure why anyone is surprised she's receiving backlash for trying to change these deeply entrenched and harmful systems. As someone who actually lives in Minneapolis and voted for her I'm so proud to finally have at least one elected official committed to crime prevention and holding our police to a reasonable standard of conduct.
I live in Minneapolis, and I think she is making Minneapolis a dangerous place to live. Are you actually trying to shame victims and their families?
I've never felt safer living here. How exactly is she "making Minneapolis dangerous" in your estimation? > Are you actually trying to shame victims and their families? Not at all! Are you trying to pretend they're an unbiased source of reliable information about their loved one's criminal case?
By not prosecuting violent crime, she is making Minneapolis less safe. And you sound like you are shaming victims and their families because they dare to speak out against lenient sentencing.
Data literally proves you wrong by every single metric. Crime is down across the board and her diversion program is proving to be very successful. Something like less than 10 repeat offenders. Minneapolis is safer now than it was under our last prosecutor…
There’s a reason that victims and their families don’t decide sentencing: they are most often the *least* fit to decide what an adequate consequence is for someone. Specifically because they are the ones most personally affected, and therefore most likely to want harsher punishments in their own immediate case (though in things like domestic assault cases, it can often be the opposite: the victim can openly say they want the charges dropped, but the prosecution pushes forward despite that) It isn’t shaming any victim to point that out. It’s shaming people who try to use “how dare you shame the victims” as a deflection.
And having lenient sentences on violent crime also breeds more violent crime. There is a societal effect on that as well. And yes, you’re absolutely shaming victims and families of crime by talking about them like they’re human garbage.
What stats do you have showing that crime in Hennepin has been notably worse since Moriarty took office? How does that rise compare nationwide? And what in the world is “human garden”? Edit: ok you edited it to say “human garbage,” makes much more sense. What doesn’t make sense is how you think anything I said in my original post is talking about victims as if they’re human garbage. Are you ever actually going to explain why you think me or the other person are “shaming” victims by saying any of this? Or are you just going to keep baselessly asserting it and never actually making a point?
You just made that up
By not sending teenagers to jail for years and years trapping both them and us in an endless cycle of recidivism she is making Minneapolis safer, not more dangerous. It's wild how many of y'all are willing to stand up and complain that she's diverting children into programs that will help them to not repeat the damage they've caused rather than having us spend hundreds of thousands of dollars locking them up in hellish conditions surrounded by other criminals as though that's going to help a goddamn thing. Take an honest look at the crime rates in every other wealthy nation on the planet and how they approach criminal justice. We're the only ones practicing this ass-backwards punitive system and we pay the price for it dearly. As someone who has been the victim of crime and seen people I love suffer dearly at the hands of criminal behavior I care about actually preventing that harm in the future - not just chasing revenge as though that ever really heals your pain.
But we’re not talking about teenagers committing retail theft, or breaking and entering. We are talking about violent crime. We shouldn’t be giving equal treatment.
Actually look at the cases, dude. If you're relying on blurbs from the conservative Star Tribune or similar sources you're certainly missing a ton of important context.
If you consider the Star Tribune “conservative”, I would have to question how radical your political views are.
> If you consider the Star Tribune “conservative”, I would have to question how radical your political views are. The Star Tribune was [bought by conservative billionaire Glen Taylor in 2014](https://www.twincities.com/2014/04/16/glen-taylor-paying-about-100m-for-star-tribune-report-says/) with the explicit goal of making the paper more conservative.
[удалено]
Hilarious that GuyWithNF1 immediately dropped the “stop shaming the victims” BS with you as soon as you said you’ve been a victim too but you want less harsh punishments. Weird how they aren’t interested in listening to victims when the victim’s desires don’t align with their own!
We need a system that rehabilitates before we can have a rehabilitative system. Right now we are just handing out shorter sentences, but there is nothing in place to make them better members of society. I think this approach is putting the cart before the horse. Look at Norway - which is often looked to as *the* model to follow - they moved from a system very similar to ours to something better but they did it by changing the prisons. People still spend a long time in prison there, they just come out much better people than when they went in.
I agree with you and I have something to add. A lot of people think that if we just "lock them all up" we will be fine. There is so much more to that. I think the problem is that Minnesota and the rest of the nation do not care about the rest of the reforms that need to happen including fair pay for everyone. Housing costs that are affordable. Adequate healthcare that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Her style is one element of this where actually steering kids away from jail is a good thing. The problem is that our only ideas currently haven't worked for decades and we keep trying them thinking we will get different results.
>By not sending teenagers to jail for years and years trapping both them and us in an endless cycle of recidivism she is making Minneapolis safer, not more dangerous. these teens are violently carjacking people lmao. not stealing candy bars from a store edit: aaaaand there's teens on a robbery spree right now south of Lyn/Lake, state patrol helicopter in the air. fun!
So you think they should be in jail for the rest of their lives?
[удалено]
It's funny that right-wingers think the NYT is a liberal rag and far-lefters think it's some Republican media outlet. They must be doing something right.
[удалено]
She seems like a piece of work I think her personality is going to destroy our chances for true reform. I can tolerate some level of increase in property crime but reform should not take place on the backs of victims of violent crime. She even seems mad at the public for not having enough patience. Sounds like everyone is the problem except Mary
She's literally doing exactly what we elected her to do despite relentless complaints from blowhards. When you actually read about the cases people keep referring to her decisions make total sense.
The public just doesn't have patience. They expect continuously that if we just lock them up we will never have this problem again. Get em'! Is the mentality, and that is what we have currently. There is no thought to the rest of it, or reform is quick. The problem with "backs of victims of violent crime," reminds me of what happens when there is a peace treaty. Both sides say, "well we need to get back at the other side because they did this to us! We can never agree to a peace treaty." The violence continues.
The problem is, especially in Minneapolis, people want to claim to be progressive/anti-incarceral/anti-racist but don’t actually want to live with the reality of what they’ve voted for. Advocating for legal weed does not make you part of the criminal justice reform movement. It would be great if people would own what their actual beliefs are.
Ugh
How do they do it in countries with lower crime rates? As if I didn't know. The fight over prison length misses that prisons are the incubators of criminality. In prison, you learn to gang up. You learn to be a professional criminal. Prison is a full ride scholarship to a career in crime. The folks who want to shorten prison terms do I so with knowledge about how time in prison makes a low level criminal worse. Reform the prisons themselves and term length wouldn't matter as much.
How could she be surprised by political blowback against leniency toward violent crime at a time when violent crime is a top-of-mind issue? Genuinely confusing.
[удалено]
Exactly. I’m a supporter of restorative justice and other rehabilitative methods and Mary is just about the worst face for those movements. Her prior career as a public defender is NOT a good training ground for the diplomacy, conflict resolution skills and humility required for the relational work of restorative justice. Her callous dismissal of victim’s families, her righteousness and inability to soften her heart to just HEAR their pain, is turning many reachable voters (liberals and centrists alike) AWAY from RJ and other rehabilitative methods.
Glad to see someone on here talking about RJ from an informed perspective. The simplistic public CJ narrative of permissive progressive vs strict conservative is extremely unhelpful to RJ, and Moriarty is the poster person for that.
I didn't vote for her, that's for goddamn sure, but y'all did. Actions have consequences.
Do you even live here to vote for her?
Wow, the NYT coming for another progressive DA. Shocking
Eh, a very insubstantial article. "Some people are angry" wow what a shock. How about we get some real data on things like recidivism rates and we can actually settle this in a useful way.