Prosecutors are the most influential figures in the fight to end mass incarceration. They determine plea deals, decide whether to file or drop charges and what sentences to seek. There are 2,400 prosecutors elected to office, but only a tiny fraction is pushing for criminal justice reform and ending racist policies out of those couple thousand. 

The United States has many progressive prosecutors, including:

• Rachael Rollins, Suffolk County, MA District Attorney
• Chesa Boudin, San Francisco District Attorney
• George Gascon, Los Angeles District Attorney
• Kim Gardner, St. Louis Circuit Attorney
• Larry Krasner, Philadelphia District Attorney
• Stephanie Morales, Commonwealth’s Attorney (Portsmouth) Virginia)
• Kim Foxx, Cook County, IL State’s Attorney
• Aramis Ayala, State Attorney for Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
• Diana Becton, Contra Costa County, CA District Attorney
• Satana Deberry, Durham County, NC District Attorney

Reformist prosecutors seek to end mass incarceration through policies such as prohibiting the use of cash bail to prevent poor people who cannot afford bail from being kept behind bars; not prosecuting non-violent drug offenses; banning civil asset forfeiture (laws that allow police to seize, retain, or even sell, any property they allege is part of a crime(ACLU). Prohibiting sentencing enhancements; prohibiting use of the death penalty; decriminalizing homelessness and protecting tenants; expanding treatment for substance abuse and mental health; not prosecuting children/juveniles as adults; and protecting immigrants by prohibiting ICE enforcement in county courthouses and probation offices. However, many progresisve prosecutors are facing pushback on their many reforms due to a strong tradition of tough on crime policies pushed by past District Attorneys and their equivalents (NY Times). Governors such as Rick Scott in Florida took away capital cases from State Attorney Aramis Ayala and in Los Angeles, deputy district attorneys are filing a lawsuit against District Attorney George Gascon over his reforms and criticisms that his charges don’t go far enough(AP News). Pushback on criminal justice reforms shifts the burden of reform back on public defenders.

Public defenders and other indigent defendant systems are typically looked at as the sole fighters against mass incarceration. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, there are over 2,300 prosecutors offices around the country compared to only 1,015 for indigent defense systems (Bureau of Justice Statistics). However, public defenders don’t have the resources to adequately defend their many clients. Prosecutors have a huge effect on many policies ranging from the three strikes law, to marijuana conviction, to police misconduct, to cash bail, all of which disproportionately affect people of color. Especially those in the working class. There are many arguments, particularly from those of conservative backgrounds, that prosecutorial reform regarding property crimes results in mass crime in the nation’s biggest cities. However, when we look at reform-minded prosecutors like District Attorney Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, a former public defender, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in St. Louis, and Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Morales, who have helped their cities economically and socially, according to the Center for American Progress(American Progress). 

When you champion bail reform, and lower charges, you save the state money on incarceration. When you champion diversion programs for nonviolent offenders, you can focus on high level or violent crime and crime rates go down. Traditional politics and tough-on-crime policies that aim to add more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies and limit parole for felons would not only increase the prison population, but cost the state millions of dollars in state and local court and law enforcement. The same traditional prosecutors have contributed to more than 10.6 million people being convicted each year and has resulted in a prison population that is larger than the civilian population.

Recap 

• United States v. Booker (2005) resulted in striking down the provision of the federal sentencing statutes that requires federal judges to stay within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and increased sentencing disparities based on race and geography.
• Mandatory minimums are strict laws that determine the sentence you receive without regard to circumstance or other factors related to a specific crime and enforces a one size fits all narrative for all crimes.
  • When faced with such harsh sentences, this practice forces defendants to take plea deals and confess to crimes they likely did not commit, increasing the prison population
• Three strikes laws are laws that, again remove sentencing discretion from judges and determine that if an individual commits three crimes, that they are beyond redemption and rehabilitation no matter their age, socioeconomic status, or mental health.
• These truth-in-sentencing laws prevent opportunities for parole and discourage inmates from taking advantage of educational and vocational opportunities