(From Press Release) – Yolo District Attorney candidate Dean Johansson today described a recent announcement by the incumbent DA as “politically motivated” – the announcement stated that the current DA may soon do what Mr. Johansson has been advocating since he entered the race…voluntarily reducing or dismissing convictions for marijuana-related offenses.
Mr. Johansson released this statement:
“Although this announcement is clearly politically motivated — and it is unclear whether the DA is exceeding or merely fulfilling his duties under Proposition 64 — I sincerely hope that the DA keeps his promise to help these individuals get their lives back. I’m also proud that our grassroots campaign is already having an impact and changing the conversation about drug enforcement in our county.
“If the current DA is truly committed to restoring justice I would urge him to be transparent about the harm that his past policies have caused. We all know that the war on drugs has disproportionately harmed communities of color, yet the DA’s office claims they do not track drug cases by race or ethnicity. The DA should also explain his past decisions to target medical marijuana growers. Did he truly believe that this was in the public interest and a wise use of our resources?”
Mr. Johansson has publicly taken a stand in favor of dismissing marijuana offenses as early as February 2 (just a week after he announced his candidacy), and has spoken about it several times since then at campaign events.
The current DA suggests his decision is motivated by an intention to follow the “will of the voters,” who voted, both in Yolo County and statewide, in favor of Proposition 64, which legalized adult
marijuana use. However, the current DA opposed Proposition 64.
In contrast, Mr. Johansson affirmed that he supported Proposition 64 as a private citizen, and that in his time as a public defender, he has seen how the DA’s over-prosecution of drug-related cases has ruined lives and torn families apart in Yolo County.
The DA’s press release claims that the District Attorney’s office has adopted “progressive” practices on Marijuana enforcement, but does not mention the office’s record of using extreme enforcement tactics against medical marijuana growers who have clearly made proactive, good faith efforts to comply with the letter of the state’s (complicated) marijuana laws.
Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor likened the aggressive tactics of drug enforcement officers, who conducted four raids in 2016 under the direction of DA Reisig, to “terrorist activity” when speaking to the LA times in early 2017.
The DA’s press release also fails to acknowledge how past drug enforcement efforts may have contributed to racial disparities in Yolo County’s justice system. In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven indicated, simply, that the office does not collect data related to the race or ethnicity of those charged with crimes.
Mr. Johansson is a former district attorney in Sacramento and Tulare counties, and has been a public defender in Yolo County (for the past 10 years) and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office. He was a private practice lawyer for 10 years focusing on civil rights law. He is a graduate of UC Berkeley and McGeorge School of Law, and an adjunct professor at the UC Davis School of Law. He is running for district attorney to bring transparency and accountability to our local criminal justice system.
Just curious, who authored this press release?
It came from the campaign, just as Gary Sandy’s press release came from his campaign.
“yet the DA’s office claims they do not track drug cases by race or ethnicity.”
“Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven indicated, simply, that the office does not collect data related to the race or ethnicity of those charged with crimes.”
This may be technically true depending on how they define the words “track”and “collect data”. However, at the Citizens Academy, with both DA Reisig and Deputy DA Raven participating, in the section devoted to drugs and gang activity, it was made clear that their primary focus was on Hispanic gang activity with the nortenos and surenos and the Broderick Boys. I find it difficult to believe that one can focus precisely on these groups without there being ethnic targeting of the Hispanic community.
Now one might think this is warranted until you consider that this same DAs office allowed a know meth dealer, Frank Rees, father of Baby Justice, to walk free for months, endangering the entire community and fathering yet another meth affected fetus, before charging him in October. All so that Reisig could ensure the medically questionable murder conviction of the baby’s mother. So much for equal treatment under the law by DA Reisig.
Please note that the above comment is my opinion only. An opinion based on specialized medical ( but not legal knowledge) but my opinion none the less.
I find this line of reasoning to be potentially lacking in logic.
In general:
If gangs exist (and are engaging in criminal activity), and they happen to primarily or exclusively consist of one ethnicity in a given area, does that mean that one should not enforce laws? (Yes, I realize that there are assumptions being made, in regard to that question.)
I would extend that question to enforcement of laws, in general.
I think this is a much more complication subject. But let’s forget about the gang issue because it’s an aside. Part of the problem in drug enforcement efforts is that most studies use white probably use drugs more frequently and may even deal drugs more frequently than people of color and yet almost all of the enforcement ends up being on people of color. It’s probably the most disproportionate part of the criminal justice system. It’s easy to suggest: if there are crimes, enforce them. But there is a practicality involved in it – people who are housing secure have ways to purchase and use drugs more discretely in places and parts of town where they are far less likely to get caught. It ends up that the way laws are enforced creates these patterns of criminality that are disproportionately impacting people of color.
Point understood. But, whenever I see the word “gangs”, it conjures up images of significant crimes – beyond personal usage of drugs. Yes, I realize that this could potentially be used as a “fear tactic”, but there’s often some reality behind it. (I tend to be less concerned about the ethnicity of perpetrators or victims, if/when there’s an actual threat to myself or someone else.)
As a result, it’s difficult for me to just “forget about the gang issue”.
Kind of amusing – I just noticed that you “sneaked in” another statement regarding “housing security” (the new buzz word), into a conversation regarding getting arrested for drug usage. Well done!
“whenever I see the word “gangs”, it conjures up images of significant crimes”
You just demonstrated that the label works.
Ron, there are many new buzz phrases that come from the left these days:
Housing security
Food security
Health security
Environmental justice
Food justice
Healthcare is a right
Housing is a right
“housing security””
People with homes can use drugs in their home and it’s hard to detect. People living on or near the streets are more likely to be caught with drugs on them or using drugs.
“many new buzz phrases”
I find it a helpful word because not everyone is homeless.
Ron is right here especially when one is talking about the “gang activity with the nortenos and surenos and the Broderick Boys.”
But this is not a story about gang activity.
It seems to me that a lot of homeless folks are Caucasian. (My apologies in advance, for noticing ethnicity. Sarcasm intended.) 🙂
You mean in Davis?
It does vary from place to place: “The racial composition of the homeless varied from city to city in the Conference of Mayors survey. (See Table 2.7.) Whites were the largest group in Burlington, Vermont (77%), Salt Lake City, Utah (63%), Portland, Oregon (62%), Cedar Rapids, Iowa (61%), Santa Monica (52%), Louisville, Kentucky (44%), Denver, Colorado (39%), and Seattle, Washington (34%). Hispanics were the largest group in San Antonio, Texas (45%). In all other cities surveyed, African-Americans were the largest group among the homeless, with the highest percentages in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (77%), Chicago (75%), Norfolk, Virginia (73%), and Trenton, New Jersey (72%).”
The reason I used “on or near the streets” and the reason I later used “housing insecure” is that I was not just talking about homeless people.
I find it difficult to believe that some are more at risk for arrest for drug usage, specifically as a result of being “semi-housed”.
I’m also pretty sure that anyone could find a place to use drugs (without being arrested), regardless of their housing situation. I can think of a lot of locations to do so, off the top of my head.
I would suggest you read the literature that attempts to explain the pretty consistent finding reported in the Washington Post article I linked above.
This is in the article I linked and gives you a flavor: “In poor black neighborhoods, drugs tend to be sold outdoors, in the open. In white neighborhoods, by contrast, drug transactions typically happen indoors, often between friends and acquaintances. If you sell drugs outside, you’re much more likely to get caught. “
I did read the article that you posted, below. Some of those statistics are from 1980.
Regardless, you’ve noted some differences in the transactions (e.g., sales between friends/acquaintances, vs. selling to strangers) that are not necessarily attributed to one’s housing situation. I’d suggest that may be due to socioeconomic factors, as a whole.
Also, these statistics do not discuss or prove one’s housing situation one way or another, in terms of the transactions being conducted.
It’s not necessarily “better” (for society, at large) to conduct such transactions in a hidden manner. It’s pretty lame (and a real stretch) to blame one’s housing situation, in direct regard to getting arrested for selling or using drugs. Avoiding arrest is not a reason that I’d support never-ending development, for example.
“Some of those statistics are from 1980.”
No, he cited a 1980 study, but his study: “My own analysis of data from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs, compared to just 5.0 percent of blacks (a 32 percent difference).”
My other point is you’re too focused on housing and not focused enough on the enforcement patterns and practices which account for the vast disparity.
As you noted, a 1980 (and 1989) study were cited in the article.
You’re the one who snuck “housing insecurity” into the conversation. Seems to me that you’re quite focused on promoting more development, and are using whatever justification you can think of to do so. Including an unsupported implication that housing should be constructed, so that illegal activity can be conducted in a more hidden manner.)
Ron
Valid question. My response would be that whites engage in drug use with the same frequency as do POC and yet neighborhoods consisting largely of POC are specifically targeted. Add to this that laws frequently discriminate by drug of choice and method of administration and you have a set up for inequality under the law.
This thread started because you brought up “gangs”. It’s all your fault!
Just kidding. 🙂 Have to run, soon.
The reason the DA and local cops “focus was on Hispanic gang activity” is not much (if any) Italian, Irish or Jewish “gang activity” in Yolo County to “focus” on…
Exactly.
Maybe but all the studies on drug use show that whites are as if not more likely to use/ sell. So how would you explanation work in the actual topic at hand?
Are you sure that’s correct, regarding “selling” in particular?
Perhaps that’s the area in which socioeconomic circumstances are more likely to result in a disproportionate result on one or more ethnicities?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white-people-are-more-likely-to-deal-drugs-but-black-people-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/?utm_term=.c9c3778cde30
Ron:
In a country with over 70% white people and under 15% black people white people do more of almost everything (including dealing drugs and getting shot by cops)…
It’s not just “More” it’s “more likely”
Ken
“whenever I see the word “gangs”, it conjures up images of significant crimes – beyond personal usage of drugs.”
” The reason the DA and local cops “focus was on Hispanic gang activity” is not much (if any) Italian, Irish or Jewish “gang activity” in Yolo County to “focus” on…”
That is certainly one way to look at it. Another way is to consider which groups we label as gangs, and which groups we do not, regardless of whether or not they engage in the same kinds of criminal activities. Having grown up in rural Washington, I know that there were groups of young white men who participated in the illegal distribution of drugs and used guns in some of their illegal activities. However, they were not referred to as “gangs”. Nor were all whites in areas where some of them lived targeted for suspicion. So would anyone like to hazard a guess why that might be ?
I welcome the District Attorney’s intent to follow the “will of the voters.” In my observation, Mr. Reisig’s office spent significant time and press in the past fighting against and blaming Prop. 47, rather than embracing the sentencing reforms and the local preventative and rehabilitative programs and strategies that rougly 60% of California and Yolo County voters supported. Perhaps a possible challenge and and a changing sense of the will of the voters as the 2018 election approached influenced the D.A.’s more recent touting of Yolo County’s grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections and joint efforts to focus on and implement criminal justice approaches beyond prosecution and incarceration.
Mr. Reisig’s changes of heart are welcomed if they produce meaningful improvements in Yolo County’s approach. But I agree with Mr. Johansson’s point that reform results would likely be better and more consistent from a D.A. who truly walks the walk. I make no political endorsement or opposition herein, but I did find this past Vanguard article and its title on-point: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2017/04/tell-prosecutor-pretending-criminal-justice-reformer/.
Not a cannabis enthusiast but it’s only right to release people who are serving sentences for dealing marijuana when it is now a mostly legal enterprise. Since a lot of those sitting behind bars for it are black; keeping them imprisoned/enslaved perpetuates the racial persecution that existed at the time of their arrests.
Regarding white/black drug addicts/addiction exploiters – I suspect those statistics are as skewed as they are irrelevant to the big picture. I think the numbers are probably close to equal. Addiction and greed are universal human vulnerabilities.
What I have seen is that “systemic privilege” often plays a role in white addicts ability to remain high functioning. They can get “legal” prescription for the medicinal forms of heroin and meth etc. They are more likely to have college degrees that have afforded them careers with entities willing to foot bills for their rehabs and/or provide them with benefits needed to take time off work with pay. They are more likely to have capable family networks able and willing to unite to help them. They are also more likely to have a lifestyle that conceals, balances, and slows their decline. They may go to the gym regularly, have good nutrition, practice yoga etc etc… The list goes on. What none of this advantages prevents, however, is the guaranteed sociopathy that comes with drug addiction. Which is why these people are extremely dangerous as they can all too easily hold positions of great power. They are able to cause immense harm to civilians and have immunity for their crimes unlike the street addict whose crimes will always be more obvious.
However, addiction being what it is – eventually many of them still meet the same fate as the poor black street meth addict with dead parents and estranged family members struggling with their own demons. Dealers the same. One side has street dealers, the other unethical pharmacists and doctors. Who is more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for long periods of time? No rocket science necessary.
I only skimmed the commentary but are we looking to give housing to more street addicts? That is not what they need. It will not help anybody. The sort of addicts that need housing are already too far gone… We need rehabilitation programs that work. Right now rehab centers are highly… lucrative, easy to open, and so ineffective I am sure I could open a comparably “successful” one with a fruit orchard, a juicer, and a sweat lodge lol. People are in it for the money and half of those rnning them are probably addicts of the “privileged” variety.
***Or “they” might “just” suffer alcoholism. Something our society seems to have forgotten the comparable dangers of as our tolerance of all the wrong things has grown.