The following story is brought to you courtesy of American Thinker. Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.
Manhattan’s newly sworn-in District Attorney started by making a very important announcement: He will no longer be enforcing the law. This is, of course, illegal and should subject him to criminal prosecution at either the state or the federal level. Of course, that won’t happen. Instead, Manhattan will become a Mad Max-esque city, so rife with crime that, eventually, all normal life stops.
When Alvin Bragg ran to be Manhattan’s D.A., his slogan was “Justice for All.” In his campaign biography, he explained to the voters that he “has spent the better part of two decades in the courtroom, standing up to the powerful and fighting to get justice.” He spent his career “standing up for tenants’ rights, civil rights and human rights.” Additionally, he “served as the first chief of a special unit that investigated police-involved killings.” These are all interesting statements from someone running, not to be a defense attorney or a plaintiff’s attorney, but to represent the state of New York and the borough of Manhattan in actions against alleged criminals.
If you’re wondering how someone who clearly does not side with the institution he was supposed to represent ended up getting the job, look no farther than the George Soros connection. The Color of Change PAC received $1 million from George Soros and, in return, Color of Change successfully spent the money to get Bragg elected. Of the 270,091 people out of Manhattan’s 1.63 million residents who voted (that is, only 17% of the population voted), 84% cast their vote for Bragg.
Upon being sworn in, Bragg immediately gave Soros value for his money. In his first memo to his staff, Bragg stated that his office will seek to incarcerate only those people who commit homicide, and a few other activities, including domestic abuse, public corruption, and some sex crimes. His assistant D.A.s have almost no discretion in the matter:
“This rule may be excepted only in extraordinary circumstances based on a holistic analysis of the facts, criminal history, victim’s input (particularly in cases of violence or trauma), and any other information available,” the memo reads.
Assistant district attorneys must also now keep in mind the “impacts of incarceration,” including whether it really does increase public safety, potential future barriers to convicts involving housing and employment, the financial cost of prison and the racial disparities over who gets time, Bragg instructed.
Even if the assistant D.A.s can seek a prison sentence, the most they can ask for is 20 years. “‘The Office shall not seek a sentence of life without parole,’ the memo states.” Rape and murder a toddler in New York? No problem. The most you’ll get is twenty years. Murder police? Twenty years. Commit a major act of terrorism? Twenty years.
The memo also spells out the precise penalty limits prosecutors can seek for all sorts of crimes. For example, armed robbery (a 25-year maximum sentence) must automatically be reduced to petty larceny (less than 1 year) if no one is seriously injured or at serious risk of harm. And so it goes, with Bragg announcing all the property and drug crimes that must be charged to destroy any real consequences upon conviction.
With Orwellian assurance, Bragg’s memo states, “These policy changes not only will, in and of themselves, make us safer; they also will free up prosecutorial resources to focus on violent crime.”
Police officers more pragmatically pointed out that when you stop punishing criminals, crime, especially violent crime, skyrockets.
And speaking of crime, to the extent that Bragg is refusing to enforce the law as legislated, he is himself committing a criminal act. Prosecutorial discretion allows prosecutors, on a case-by-case basis, to determine how stringent the charges should be against a specific criminal. No prosecutor, however, has the unilateral authority to rewrite criminal justice laws. Likewise, no prosecutor has the power to violate the civil rights of ordinary people, the ones who aren’t criminals, by bringing violent anarchy to their streets, stores, and homes.
Bragg knows this. He also knows he can act with complete impunity because both the New York State attorney general’s office and the Department of Justice are in the hands of people who support his agenda.
And what is their agenda? Admittedly, none are honestly articulating it. They fall back on catchphrases such as “social justice,” “equity,” etc. But if you look past the language and examine the consequences flowing from their flouting the law, one can discern two trends: destroying civil society and creating the circumstances that justify calling in an all-powerful federal government to take over crime-ridden cities.
As for Manhattanites, I pity only the 43,000 or so who voted against Bragg (and, probably, against A.G. Letitia James and Joe Biden, too). As for the rest, whether they voted or sat out the elections, they’ve earned what’s coming their way.