Vice President Kamala Harris’ tenure as Attorney General of California and a former San Francisco prosecutor suggests an evolving approach to criminal justice. Harris spent her time as AG prosecuting drug-related offenses, a focus that has garnered both praise and criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. Harris oversaw one of the largest legal systems in the United States, and she managed some major drug-related cases that critics argue disproportionately impacted minority communities and exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Her aggressive prosecutorial record on drug cases reflected popular “tough on crime” policies prevalent in the 1990s and early 2000s, which all contributed to mass incarceration and disproportionately affected African Americans. This heavily contrasts her later advocacy for criminal justice reform.
One prominent case illustrating these tensions involved Michael Harris (unrelated), a drug dealer sentenced to a lengthy prison term for trafficking. The case highlighted significant racial disparities in sentencing with African American defendants frequently receiving harsher penalties compared to their white counterparts for similar offenses. Critics argue that Harris, the first female, Black, South Asian attorney to hold these offices, failed to address the disparities or advocate for more equitable sentencing practices during her tenure.
Harris’ office led the 2010 prosecution of Jamal Trulove for the murder of his friend, Seu Kuka. An appellate court later determined Trulove was framed by the police, leading to his release after six years of incarceration. The city of San Francisco agreed to a $13 million settlement with Trulove. Although she was unlikely to have reviewed the case details closely Harris would have had to approve the prosecutions. She has not publicly addressed Trulove’s case.
As Attorney General in 2010, Harris' office also opposed DNA testing for Kevin Cooper, who had been on death row since 1985 for a quadruple murder he claimed he did not commit. It was only after a 2018 New York Times article exposing misconduct in Cooper's case that Harris supported allowing the DNA testing. (A subsequent state-commissioned investigation confirmed the evidence against Cooper was “extensive and conclusive.”)
However, she worked to present herself as a criminal justice reformer in her later years. Her support for the First Step Act, which reduced mandatory minimum sentences, and her crusade for police body cameras contrasts her decades-long record of contributing to sentencing disparities.
This isn’t her only policy evolution. Harris defended marijuana use for medicinal purposes as district attorney, but her San Francisco prosecutors convicted nearly 2,000 people on cannabis-related offenses. She continued to oppose recreational sales of marijuana in 2010, but then reversed course while unsuccessfully running for president in 2019. She even joked about using the drug herself. And, while Harris vowed never to seek the death penalty as a San Francisco district attorney, as California attorney general her office argued it should remain intact.
Political candidates evolve all the time. Not too long ago a "liberal" U.S. president opposed LGBTQ+ citizens serving in the military. Harris' own Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz got endorsements from the National Rifle Association when he was a U.S. Representative in 2007. But Walz stepped away from NRA policies after the 2018 Parkland high school shooting in Florida and enacted new gun safety measures as Minnesota governor. As a presidential candidate, however, Harris should be obligated to address these inconsistencies by clearly indicating her permanent position on rectifying systemic problems within the criminal justice system. Her effectiveness as a stated advocate for advancing criminal justice reform will depend on her ability to reconcile her past actions with her current policy positions.
___________________
C. Dreams is an advocate who writes and lectures about prison and criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, harm reduction, and government and cultural criticism.
Comments