Kamala Harris, in her tenure as a California Attorney General, has shown her true colors when it comes to stance on violent crime. Surprisingly, she offered a fresh perspective on heinous crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, child sex trafficking, and rape of an unconscious person. Instead of understanding the gravity of these offenses, she considered them to be non-violent crimes. Ironic! Isn’t it?
It appears that Harris’ handling of Proposition 57, a 2016 state ballot measure, instigated these alarming revelations. Instead of fighting for stricter regulations on crime, she mysteriously took a back seat. She neither contributed to drafting the proposal nor openly supported it, but she did write the title and summary language, which did nothing to clarify the definitions of nonviolent crimes. So, one might say that it didn’t redefine anything, but can that excuse the confusion she allowed to persist?
Proposition 57, which was eventually approved, paved the way for convicted felons of nonviolent crimes to be considered for an early parole. The measure’s definition of violent and nonviolent crimes hinged upon the state’s existing penal code, which listed 23 offenses as ‘violent’. But amazingly, the crimes cited by Harris were not included on this list, leading to understandable confusion and offering leniency where it should not have been provided.
The ex-President, Donald Trump, has always been one to call out such errors in judgment. During his rally on Oct. 27 in New York, he unmasked Harris’ misinterpretation of California’s criminal law to thousands of his supporters gathered at the Madison Square Garden. And why wouldn’t he, considering how she practically redefined violent crimes as nonviolent, showing a soft corner for offenders?
The official response from the Republican National Committee was swift when questioned for evidence of Trump’s claims. They highlighted Harris’ indisputable influence on Proposition 57 that let offenders receive early parole. There is no escaping the fact that Harris’ intentional or unintentional stand has warped the reality of these matters.
Did Harris influence the public opinion on this measure? Apparently, she chose to stay uninvolved in the ballot measure during her tenure, from 2011 to 2017. However, she was conveniently responsible for writing the ballot measure summary language, though she expressed neither support nor opposition to Proposition 57.
This practice has been indeed misleading. Proposition 57’s definition of a ‘nonviolent’ felony took reference from the existing penal-code of California, which includes 23 crimes classified as ‘violent felonies’. The crimes Trump referred to were not on the violent felonies list, therefore by default, classified as non-violent, but this doesn’t absolve Harris of her role in perpetuating this view.
Enter Jerry Brown, a Democrat and then-governor of California, who formulated Proposition 57 to address prison overcrowding. One aspect of the measure permitted offenders convicted of nonviolent felony offenses to be eligible for parole after serving time for primary offenses. Yet, both the ballot’s text and state law fell short in defining which crimes fall under ‘nonviolent’. This vague definition relies on pre-set criteria, thanks to Harris’ involvement.
Historically, Section 667.5(c) of California’s penal code has classified crimes like murder, kidnapping, and any offense punishable by death as ‘violent’, dating back to at least the 1980s. Strangely, crimes that anyone with common sense would describe as violent, including assault with a deadly weapon (excluding firearms), human trafficking involving a minor, and rape of an unconscious person, were not listed as such.
Defining what constitutes a violent crime has always stirred up controversies. Hence the Stanford University’s criminal law professor rightly stated, ‘The definition of violent versus nonviolent crime has always been controversial. It’s arguably arbitrary. It’s set there by statute.’ But this ambiguity doesn’t excuse Harris’ blase attitude.
Even though Proposition 57 didn’t modify the list of crimes considered ‘violent’, changing that list or ‘redefining’ violent crimes would demand legislation from the state Assembly or another ballot measure, not an act by the attorney general. However, Harris’ role in defining Proposition 57 cannot be dismissed lightly.
Harris neither penned the Prop 57 ballot measure nor took a public stance on it. Her only contribution was writing the title and summary language for the ballot, a perfunctory requirement as attorney general. The ballot summary let loose a vague phrase: ‘Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, upon completion of prison term for their primary offense as defined.’ Just another instance of missing accountability!
The overarching critique of Harris’ tenure, one that Trump reiterated forcefully, was that she managed to portray certain violent crimes as nonviolent through her subtle maneuvers with the 2016 Prop 57. The proposition allowed convicts of ‘nonviolent offenses’ to receive earlier parole consideration. Although Harris did her part as the Attorney General by writing the ballot summary language, she failed in purveying the gravity of violent offenses.
Trump’s accusation rested on the basis of Proposition 57 and Harris’ involvement. However, instead of steering the tide towards a stricter penal code, her influence veered towards undermining the seriousness of violent and nonviolent offenses. Her apathy for clarity in defining such offenses raises pertinent questions on her competence.
In a nutshell, California’s Proposition 57 sought to provide earlier parole consideration for people convicted of ‘nonviolent offenses’. Harris’ role in providing the ballot summary for the proposition did not directly ‘redefine’ the violent or nonviolent offenses. Still, her lack of decisive action perpetuated a dangerous misinterpretation of such terms.
Quick to point the fallacies in Harris’ conduct, Trump shed light on both Harris’ involvement and the nature of Proposition 57. Her disengagement in clarifying the distinction between violent and nonviolent crimes has indeed raised eyebrows. The claims reveal the disparity prevalent during her reign, laying bare how rhetoric can obfuscate reality.