My view on the Los Angeles County DA's election
In my career in the justice system in Los Angeles, I had several occasions to be in the same room as then Assistant LAPD Chief George Gascón. On one occasion, I was tasked with providing a briefing to him and his staff. From what I know of working for / with his staff, he was a fairly consistent person. By this I mean, he came into the meetings that I was involved with having an opinion and a plan, and nothing presented to him seemed to sway his position in the slightest.
That being said, we have an election here in Los Angeles county and he’s running for re-election. The local polling has him in the lead against the other candidates, but well behind “undecided.” There’s a lot at stake and a lot of money being thrown at the election.
A recent tactic in the advertising blitz against Gascón pits victims of crime against his “soft on crime” policies. It’s this aspect of the election that has got me concerned as I saw an element of this really infect and pervert the American justice system during my years there.
Here’s what I mean.
To be sure, Gascón has pursued an agenda of “progressive reform” that has proven divisive, garnering both ardent praise and harsh criticism. Central to Gascón’s approach is an emphasis on defending constitutional civil liberties protections for defendants and a commitment to the core principle of presumed innocence.
In shaping policies aimed at reducing mass incarceration and rebalancing the scales of justice, Gascón has prioritised the rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution, regardless of the alleged crimes committed. He has argued that the system has for too long ignored those rights when pursuing convictions and harsh punishments, particularly for marginalised communities.
Gascón’s critics have painted his commitment to constitutional rights as being ‘soft on crime’ and showing insufficient concern for public safety and victims’ rights. But his supporters say the vitriol directed his way demonstrates how radical adhering to constitutional protections has become in a system built on decades of tough-on-crime policies that sacrificed civil liberties. Reaffirming ‘defendants’ rights’ and ‘the presumption of innocence’ is key to unraveling the injustices perpetuated against generations of the accused, Gascón’s reformist allies contend.
Recent prohibitions on sentence enhancements for gang affiliations reflect this constitutional approach. Whilst seeking longer sentences based on associations clearly conflicts with ‘due process’ and disproportionately target minority groups, opponents argue enhancing punishments serves the interests of vulnerable communities impacted by gang violence. Similar ideological battles have played out over cash bail reform, reduced sentencing, and revisiting past convictions.
The debates surrounding Gascón underscore the delicate balancing act between achieving justice for victims, protecting rights for the accused, and ensuring public safety. Reasonable people can disagree on where lines should be drawn. But in following his ‘revolutionary vision’ for reform, Gascón has erred toward defending long-ignored constitutional protections, even in the face of prominent public opposition.
What Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The presumption of innocence is a core tenet of the American criminal justice system, enshrined both in the Constitution and in long-established common law traditions. It assigns the burden of proof firmly to the prosecution, which must affirmatively establish guilt rather than assuming it from the outset. When this bedrock principle gets ignored, the course of justice becomes profoundly perverted.
Placing the burden on the accused essentially requires proving a negative—their innocence rather than the affirmative case against them. As I’ve seen in the many cases I’ve worked, the prosecution already bears immense investigatory and evidentiary advantages over most defendants in building their case. Reversing the presumption of innocence amplifies an already inherently imbalanced dynamic in resources between the state and individual.
Forcing defendants to prove their innocence also contradicts the reasonable doubt standard intended as their primary protection. Reasonable doubt sets an intentionally high bar for finding guilt precisely because the Founders recognised a preference for avoiding wrongful convictions, even if that risked letting some guilty go free. Eroding or ignoring the presumption flips that calculus on its head.
In practice, presuming guilt often disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable—the poor, minorities, the mentally disabled … or simply those without a good enough alibi. These groups already face higher rates of arrest and conviction. Loosening reasonable doubt standards facilitates further targeting by limiting their protections. Even if charges get dismissed, the damages from detained pre-trial, lost jobs, lengthy court processes take their toll.
Overturning the presumption essentially amounts to the accused having to prove their worthiness of basic civil liberties. The prosecution and law enforcement face no accountability to demonstrate adherence to these rights, perverting their obligations. Officers already evade scrutiny given the court system’s incestuous reliance on sustaining convictions to perpetuate its existence. Removing the one barrier intended to check overzealous policing or prosecution gives those powers free reign.
Whilst social media “true crime” sleuthing and high profile cases erode traditions around presumed innocence in pursuit of securing more convictions, the costs to civil rights are immense. Upholding those foundational liberties for even those accused of the worst crimes preserves democratic ideals. Fighting ignorance around the meaning and import of “innocent until proven guilty” remains imperative.
Just lock ‘em up already …
The emotional rawness displayed in the District Attorney campaign underscores how contentious issues of crime and punishment have become. For victims of crime and others who have lost loved ones, securing swift convictions provides a sense of closure and justice. But as DA Gascón noted, continuing approaches that have failed for generations focuses more on retribution than sustainable solutions.
Upholding the core constitutional principle of presumed innocence is not meant to minimise victims’ suffering or cater to criminals. Rather, it embodies the Founders’ wisdom that no one’s rights are secure if we selectively target disfavoured groups or strip those rights away based solely on accusations before full evidence emerges (Innocence Project, anyone …). Sacrificing those principles, even when public passions for punishment run high, threatens the impartial rule of law that distinguishes our system.
Police and prosecutors face immense pressure to deliver convictions and satiate society’s desire for justice. But the measure of justice cannot solely be conviction rates or sentences handed down. True justice means adhering to protections guaranteed equally to all—the accused and the free, the innocent and the guilty. Because when we allow those foundations to erode under the banner of “law and order,” we come that much closer to mob rule overriding dispassionate due process.
In this age of hyper-partisanship and fracturing social cohesion, defending constitutional liberties for all remains imperative. Neither victims nor the accused should be used as political props. And if certain groups face higher rates of presumed guilt absent evidence, responsibility lies as much with the system’s existing inequities as with individual actors. Healing social fissures while upholding the Bill of Rights constitutes the only viable path forward.
Oh … I may agree with him on this issue, but I don’t intend to vote for him …