April started out as “beat up on Phil” month, when At-Large Council Candidate A. Scott Bolden released a press release alleging that incumbent Phil Mendelson “has single-handedly stalled legislation proposed by the Mayor, backed by the police union ... to get tough on criminals.” The Mayor himself went after Mendelson in a press conference, saying that he was disappointed that the councilmember was taking so long and was considering revisions.

The legislation in question is actually a package of 22 separate crime-related titles, most of which were proposed by the mayor. The individual legislative pieces are varied, but the overall thrust of the bill is to create new criminal statutes, to create several new mandatory minimum sentences, and to create sentencing enhancements that prosecutors can choose to use in certain situations on top of standard charges. Several pieces are controversial, including:

• A mandatory minimum sentence of 7 to 14 years imprisonment for possessing “cop-killer” ammunition, a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the crime of violence against juveniles and a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
• A change in juvenile justice proceedings that would assume that a juvenile suspect willfully missed a hearing if they were absent unless the defense could prove otherwise, and concerns over the penalty enhancements.
• A statute that would make it illegal for two or more people to congregate in a an area declared a “prostitution free zone” if they had been told to leave by a police officer who reasonably believed they were engaged in prostitution or a related offense.

The soft-spoken but hard-campaigning Bolden makes the most of every headline opportunity, and few are surprised that the former prosecutor has chosen to go after Mendelson over the length of time the crime legislation package has sat in his committee. Yet a year in committee is not uncommon for a legislative package of this size and complexity; a similar juvenile justice legislative bundle also took a year to make its way through the process in 2004. Nevertheless, some close to the councilmember wonder if Mendelson has played his cards correctly, pointing out that he, the incumbent, has been caught on the defensive in a matter that he has full control over as chair of the Judiciary Committee. 

The horse-race of the campaign aside, the 2006 elections will likely provide some very stark alternatives when it comes to deciding how the city treats public safety and crime. As a rule, concerns about crime rank higher among likely voters then they do among citizens-at-large. So candidates tend to play up a hard-on-crime image during the elections. Tough-on-crime tactics that emphasize heavy criminal penalties and increased tools for prosecutors, however, often conflict with the realities of a city that imprisons more residents each year then it sends to college.  

For the most part, the candidates are playing it safe, promising to both hold criminals accountable and yet also beef up opportunities and supports for offenders. Yet huskers sang the same tune in the last election, and huge gaps remain in employment supports, substance abuse treatment resources.

That said, although they aren’t playing it up, a few candidates have taken strong positions outside of the herd.

Adrian Fenty was the only mayoral candidate that did not attend the April 19 mayoral candidates forum sponsored by the Fraternal Order Of Police (FOP), pleading that he had another commitment. Candidates Linda Cropp and Vincent Orange left early as well. But Fenty may have had another reason for not attending - he certainly would not have joined his fellow hopefuls in pledging to support legislation mandating a minimum jail term of 7 years for possession of armor-piercing ammunition. According to Fenty’s campaign manager, Alec Evans, Fenty “is opposed to all mandatory minimums, which have been proven not to be effective. Adrian believes that judging should be left up to the experts - the judges.”

Police officers strongly support the mandatory minimum laws on the “cop-killer” bullets. One such bullet was responsible for the death of Jason E. White, a police officer killed in 1993 when he was out on patrol. “[Criminals] on the street definitely know about this kind of legislation,” said Detective Vince Tucci, a executive steward for the Fraternal Order of Police’s Labor Committee, “it will definitely make people think twice before they buy this kind of ammunition.”

But lawyers from the public defender service point out that the problem with law is that it takes away all room for mitigating circumstances. “This is a law about possession. What is in here to stop a person from being locked away for seven years? If a woman agrees to hold a gun for her boyfriend, she may be committing a crime by taking ownership of the gun, but that does not mean that she knows what kind of ammunition is inside.”

Although Fenty has never served on the Judiciary Committee, the councilmember has demonstrated his progressive bent on criminal issue before. In 2003, when the mayor and other coucilmembers were dueling to introduce tough-on-juvenile-crime measures, Fenty introduced a bill that emphasized rehabilitative programs and required the closure of the District’s infamous juvenile prison, Oak Hill. Fenty’s approach to the legislation was emblematic - he went straight to the progressive advocates on the issue. Says Liz Ryan, the advocacy director of Building Blocks for Youth: “He got us together in a room, and asked us what we felt would make a good bill, and that is a lot of what he ended up presenting.” 

According to people who have seen the proposed changes to the current legislation that Mendelson has circulated, he aims to take out most of the mandatory minimum sentences and blunt some of the statutory expansions that concern civil liberties groups. In some cases, however, he will replace those with increased sentencing caps. The upper limit on a sentence for possessing armor piercing ammunition, for example, would be increased from 3 to 10 years, but there would be no mandatory minimum sentence.

In many ways, Mendelson seems to be following the lead of the previous chair, Kathy Patterson, who chaired the Judiciary Committee from 2000 to 2004. Patterson won the ire of the department when she challenged the MPD on its actions in the 2002 anti-globalization demonstrations at Pershing Park, where police arrested protestors without giving an order to disperse. She also blunted the most punitive provisions of the varied 2004 juvenile justice bills, including one that would have penalized parents for delinquent behavior of their children.

Patterson’s civil liberties bent, however, is probably what caused a Fraternal Order of Police subcommittee to issue an early endorsement for Patterson’s chief opponent, Ward 7 Councilmember Vincent Gray. With only one full year on the council, Gray does not have a large record on public safety, although as the chair of the Special Committee on Youth Violence, has stressed a comprehensive, youth-development focused approach to the issue, which separates him from the narrow outlook of some of his colleagues on the stump. Lately, however, the councilmember has started to talk tougher, supporting the provision that would shift the burden of proof on the willful failure to appear for juveniles, “we have to provide treatment, but we have to hold young people accountable as well,” he says.

The remaining candidates seem to be talking tough but balking at specifics. Council Chair Linda Cropp joined in the criticism of Mendelson, saying that she thinks that the mandatory minimum for armor piercing legislation “certainly should have come up for a vote by now.” Yet Cropp declined to go into details about how possession would be defined, saying she needed to look into the issue, and also said that she did believe that the District should be providing more rehabilitation opportunities as well. 

Marie Johns, whose father served as a police officer, said that while she in general supports judicial discretion, “some crimes are so severe that they require mandatory minimums.” But Johns also said that she strongly believed that the juvenile justice system must be reformed to nurture young people, especially those who were raised in strained circumstances. “If we have failed to educate and nurture them, we simply can not throw away the key.” Like other candidates in this bunch, however, Johns was not prepared to draw a line as to exactly where mandatory minimums were applicable, or what kind of additional criminal penalties should be enacted to make enforcement of quality-of-life crimes easier. 

Of all of the candidates, perhaps the most interesting approach comes from Michael Brown. Brown has called himself the people’s candidate, and has reached out to young people with a series of “Go-Go summits.” Yet Brown seems to be the one candidate who most ardently believes in actually strengthening penalties but also providing additional services. In fact, the main pillar of Brown’s campaign sometimes seems to be a call for a return to old-school family values. “You see,” he tells the stump, “when I was growing up I was afraid of the police officer on my street telling my mother about what I was doing...” But although many audiences seem to agree with the sentiment, Brown hasn’t yet released any details on how he can bring his childhood vision back through policy.