Nathan Hochman is challenging George Gascón for Los Angeles County County district attorney this coming November in what appears to be a battle between the progressive decarceration trend that spread across the U.S. recently and a ‘90s-style tough-on-crime backlash.
Hochman wouldn’t necessarily characterize the race as such. In a recent interview with myself and members of the Southern California News Group’s editorial board, he fashioned himself as more of a moderate — he calls it the “hard middle.” According to him, he doesn’t want to go back to the days of mass incarceration. He also thinks Gascón’s “criminal-friendly” policies go too far and are directly responsible for crime increases in the county. Hochman claims that he’ll be tougher on crime while also giving low-level or first time offenders the opportunity to avoid serious jail time, giving them the opportunity to reform and reintegrate.
Despite his self-descriptions, he’s clearly exploiting the fears and worries shared by many L.A. County residents of increases in violent crime and property crime during Gascón’s tenure.
During the interview, Hochman repeatedly accused Gascón of neglecting the interests of victims while prioritizing the rights of criminals.
In an op-ed published this week, Hochman also wrote, “Gascón’s priority has always been on criminal defendants — even though they already have their own attorney representing them. With Gascón as D.A., criminal defendants end up with two advocates: defense counsel and the district attorney.”
Is that really so bad?
In an infamously unjust criminal justice system like the one we have in the United States, is it undesirable to have a DA who takes fairness for defendants and the incarcerated into consideration?
Hochman neglects to mention that part of the motivation for progressive policies like Gascón’s is to prevent future crime, thereby reducing the number of future victims — it’s not, as Hochman’s rhetoric suggests, for the love of criminals.
He may disagree with whether Gascón’s policies have that effect, but he must be familiar with the theory behind them.
Instead of having a nuanced understanding, given the way Hochman characterizes his opponent, you would think that Gascón just loves criminals and hates victims.
It’s troubling to hear a possible future L.A. County DA pay so little mind to the ways in which a DA could contribute to holistic fairness in our courts.
Hochman again demonstrated this trait when I asked him about plea bargains.
Plea bargains have been extensively criticized on the grounds that innocent people are coerced into pleading guilty through threats like trial penalties, among other issues. I asked Hochman how he would lead his office in balancing justice system efficiency with fair outcomes for defendants.
In what I found to be perhaps the most bewildering moment of the interview, Hochman seemed surprised to hear that there are problems with the plea bargain system. Not just surprised, he also claimed that people who make such claims about plea bargains have never worked in the system — his law professors at Stanford would beg to differ.
He used his time to explain to us how plea bargains work, for some reason, and then attacked Gascón’s lack of prosecutorial experience.
Hochman claimed that if the plea bargain system was indeed being used in such odious ways, then the defense attorney and the court had failed at their jobs.
That’s the point — they very often fail at their jobs, which is why perhaps it would be a good idea to have a DA who understands the fact that plea bargains are, in everyday real life, used in coercive and unjust ways.
After all, his prosecutors would be the ones proposing the terms of the plea deals.
It’s unreasonable to expect a county DA to reform something as entrenched as the plea deal system. But the least we can expect is that they would be cognizant of the ways in which it results in injustices and have something to say about it other than just flat out denial.
One should expect a candidate for district attorney to know this, yet it seems that Hochman is too preoccupied with his single-minded exploitation of our fears to consider the fact that we don’t necessarily have to sacrifice justice for victims to improve fairness for defendants. We can call it striking the “hard middle.”
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. He is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Rochester. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.