Progressives Lose Out In San Francisco Elections

Ed Lee and George Gascon are on the verge of being elected mayor and district attorney, respectively, in San Francisco, beating more progressive candidates, notably John Avalos and David Onek. 

Avalos and Onek both had enormous grassroots support and built coalitions from a wide and diverse array of community groups.  They pushed progressive ideas which, hopefully, as Onek said, "left an indelible mark on San Francisco."

Avalos ran an amazing campaign, without anything close to the money and machinery of Lee or some of the other candidates.  He actually garnered more votes from those voting at the polls on election day but lost because of the earlier absentee voting that went overwhelming to Lee.  Nevertheless, as Tim Redmond put it, Avalos "moblized thousands of people and demonstrated how much of a force progressives can be."

David Onek, as I wrote here often, would have provided a thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues that I'm not sure we're going to see from Gascon, the former police chief.  (See, e.g., Onek's the One, A True Criminal Justice Reformer.)  Onek, like Avalos, made a strong second place showing, and also ran a phenomenal campaign.

Importantly, they both forced debate on progressive issues.  As Avalos declared, "I’m proud that progressive taxation, municipal banking, and free Muni for kids found their way onto the platforms of some of the most moderate candidates."  And Onek ensured that the District Attorney's race was not simply about law and order, but focused on juvenile justice, restorative justice and criminal justice reform.

Onek summed it up:

Our extraordinarily diverse coalition is a living testament to the importance of bringing law enforcement and community together. We defined the key issues of this campaign – from preventing crime, reforming our juvenile justice system and implementing restorative justice programs, to opposing the death penalty and reforming Three Strikes. These are issues many of us have fought for together for the past twenty years and will continue to fight for moving forward.

Vote For Onek: Progressive District Attorney Is Not An Oxymoron

David has united San Franciscans because he understands that we must keep violent offenders off the street and focus on preventing crime with better education, job training and drug treatment.  David has a clear plan -- The Safest Generation -- to keep kids in school and out of the criminal justice system.  

OK, San Franciscans.  You have the opportunity to vote for the only candidate for District Attorney who will dramatically reform our broken criminal justice system.  His approach to criminal justice, juvenile justice, and restorative justice could become a model for the country.  (See, e.g., Onek's the One, A True Criminal Justice Reformer.)

As Sasha Abramsky wrote in The Nation Magazine, "if he wins, he will emerge as one of the country’s most progressive big-city DAs, at a moment when fiscal crisis is forcing a fundamental reimagining of our criminal justice priorities."

The San Francisco Bay Guardian selected David, who they describe as an "idealistic reformer," as their choice to become San Francisco's next District Attorney:

[Onek] has by far the strongest credentials and agenda for reform. He starts off every interview and discussion by saying that the criminal justice system in California is broken — not bent, not sprained, not in need of a little attention, but utterly broken...San Francisco could make a national statement by electing a district attorney who wants to change criminal justice, not just make it work better.

 Vote for David Onek.

David Onek: The Home Stretch

If he wins, he will emerge as one of the country’s most progressive big-city DAs, at a moment when fiscal crisis is forcing a fundamental reimagining of our criminal justice priorities.  -- Sasha Abramsky, The Nation Magazine

David Onek's impressive campaign for District Attorney for San Francisco is in its last weeks.  I have written often of my strong support for his candidacy.  David is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  He would provide the kind of thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues that is so badly needed.  (See, e.g., Onek's the One, A True Criminal Justice Reformer.) 

Not surprisingly, David has the strongest grassroots campaign and built the largest and most diverse coalition of any candidate.  He is the leading fundraiser and has garnered a very impressive list of endorsements across the political and criminal justice spectrum.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian selected David, who they describe as an "idealistic reformer," as their choice to become San Francisco's next District Attorney:

[Onek] has by far the strongest credentials and agenda for reform. He starts off every interview and discussion by saying that the criminal justice system in California is broken — not bent, not sprained, not in need of a little attention, but utterly broken...San Francisco could make a national statement by electing a district attorney who wants to change criminal justice, not just make it work better.

With only a month left, this is the time to join David in his efforts to, as he puts it, "make San Francisco the safest and fairest city in the country."   Click here for information for how you can help make phone calls at campaign headquarters (207 Sanchez Street) and to knock on doors.

It is crucial to keep the momentum going.

The Sheriff's Endorsement Of David Onek For D.A.

Sheriff Michael Hennessey

I have written often of my strong support for David Onek's candidacy for San Francisco District Attorney.  David is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  He would provide a thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues.  (See, e.g., Onek's the One, A True Criminal Justice Reformer.) 

It is not surprising that David has garnered a wide array of supporters, from law enforcement as well as the criminal defense bar, and from educators, current and former political leaders and unions.  Nor is it surprising, indeed it is quite telling, that his latest endorsement comes from Sheriff Michael Hennessey, the longest tenured Sheriff in the State of California, widely known and greatly respected for, among other things, his pioneering efforts in developing prisoner education and rehabilitation programs.

This is from the press release issued by David's campaign:

Sheriff Michael Hennessey today endorsed criminal justice reform expert and former Police Commissioner David Onek for San Francisco District Attorney. 
Hennessey, who was first elected from outside the sheriff’s office, made his office an acknowledged statewide and nationwide leader in implementing proven, data-driven reforms. He’s been widely recognized for championing innovative education and rehabilitation programs in the jails and in the community, and for dramatically increasing the number of women, minorities, and gays and lesbians in his office.



"David Onek has the skill and the will to make San Francisco safer," said Sheriff Hennessey. "As Sheriff, I was able to institute reforms because I had not spent my career as an insider maintaining the status quo. David will bring this same fresh perspective to the Office of District Attorney. As our next District Attorney, David Onek will work with law enforcement and the community to reduce crime in our city. Please join me in voting for David Onek as our next District Attorney."


"I am so humbled to receive Sheriff Hennessey’s endorsement," said Onek. "For over three decades, Sheriff Hennessey has been one of San Francisco’s most dedicated and respected public servants – and our city is safer today because of him. His record of engaging with the community and implementing innovative reforms is an inspiration for me and for our entire campaign." 



  (You can see the entire list of over 2,000 supporters by visiting www.DavidOnek.com/Supporters.)

The Answer Is: David Onek's Policy On Three Strikes

The Question:  What is another reason why David Onek would be a far better District Attorney than current D.A. George Gascon.

Lucinda Moyers, the woman charged with burglarizing Jeopardy host Alex Trebek's hotel room has two non-violent burglary convictions, dating back to 1990 and 1991. She claims she suffers from a heroin addiction. D.A. Gascon is charging Moyers under California's Three Strikes Law which, if she is convicted, would result in a 25-to-life sentence.

This is what David Onek, who is running against Gascon for District Attorney of San Francisco, had to say:

Moyers, if found guilty, certainly needs to be punished for her actions,  but a punishment of 25 years to life is completely disproportionate for someone who has never been convicted of a violent crime. Moyers is 56 years old. Does it make any fiscal sense to keep her locked up into her seventies and eighties at an average cost of $47,000 per year – and likely more as she has greater health care needs as she ages?
As District Attorney, I would have a clear policy against charging third strikes for non-violent crimes. Based on the information we know about this case, I would absolutely not have charged Moyers under Three Strikes.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about Three Strikes in this campaign, and claims that all the candidates have the same views about it. This case is evidence that we most certainly do not.

Click here to read Onek's article on the need for Three Strikes reform.  Click here and here to read about why I support his candidacy.  And click here to join and/or contribute to his campaign.

A True Criminal Justice Reformer

There are certainly some juveniles who need to be incarcerated, for our safety and theirs.  But we can make our city safer by having the knowledge to see the difference between a dangerous juvenile and simply a troubled child who, with our support, can be directed to a productive path.  -- David Onek

David Onek is running for District Attorney of San Francisco.  I  have previously written about why I so strongly believe in his candidacy:  Onek's the One.  David's goal as District Attorney would not be simply to put more people behind bars but to find creative ways to to reduce the inflated prisoner population.  In this regard, he has just released a major policy initiative -- The Safest Generation: A Common Sense Plan to Make Our Entire City Safer by Reforming Our Juvenile Justice System.  This plan is emblematic of  his thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues.

Since, as David writes, "the majority of adult criminals started out in the juvenile justice system," it is critical to develop programs that will keep youth out of the criminal justice system.  He understands that while there are a small number of juveniles who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant incarceration, punitive policies for most young offenders is inappropriate and leads to them becoming more persistent offenders.

Juvenile offenders can be held accountable for their acts without sweeping them into the criminal justice system.  David is a strong believer in the restorative justice model, which "does a better job of holding  youth accountable than the traditional justice system."  Instead of seeking to punish those who break the law -- which encourages the offender to deny responsibility -- a restorative justice program holds him or her directly accountable to the people they harmed:  "the 'punishment' is determined by the victim,the offender, and the community."

One of the many impressive aspects of David's approach to criminal justice is his emphasis on bringing the various stakeholders together and forging strong partnerships with the community.  To reform the juvenile justice system he will work with educators, community leaders, law enforcement, and city agencies to: (1) address the over-representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system; (2) address the unique needs of girls in the system; (3) focus on health at all levels; (4) continue reform of foster care; (5) focus on schools; and (6) expand focus on safe recreation, after-school and employment opportunities.

It is significant that David's first detailed policy initiative concerns juvenile justice and is designed to "cut crime at the source."  It reflects his vision for criminal justice reform, which requires "fundamentally chang[ing] the way we prosecute, and prevent, crime."  Rather than relying on knee-jerk, overly punitive responses to crime and violence, David will engage the community and implement policies in ways that will make us safer. 

To learn more about David's ideas for criminal and juvenile justice and to join and/or contribute to his campaign, click here

Support David Onek At Cafe Du Nord

On Tuesday, June 28 at 6:00 pm, there will be for a reception at Café Du Nord for my friend David Onek, who is running for San Francisco District Attorney.  This is a great opportunity to support an extraordinary candidate at a really fun venue. 

David is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  I have previously written about why I so strongly believe in David's candidacy:  Onek's the One.

David is a criminal justice reformer who has served as a San Francisco Police Commissioner and top criminal justice staffer in the San Francisco Mayor’s Office. David is currently a Senior Fellow at Berkeley Law School and host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast.

You can get a strong sense of David's thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues by by clicking on the "Onek" tag below and reading his previously posted articles.  (You can also learn more about David’s campaign here, see his full his full list of supporters here, read recent articles about him here and here, and listen to his Criminal Justice Conversation Podcast here.)

The campaign has tremendous momentum, with over 1,500 people already signed on in support – elected officials, community and advocacy leaders, educators, law enforcement officials, legal community members, neighbors and friends.  Join us.

Café Du Nord is located 2170 Market Street in San Francisco.  Click here to RSVP on-line.

Conflict of Interest

David Onek is a candidate for District Attorney of San Francisco.  David is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  As I have previously written, he has developed a thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues.  David is currently a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice.  He is a former San Francisco Police Commissioner and also served in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Office of Criminal Justice.  Learn more about David and his candidacy here. 

George Gascón -- Violating Conflict of Interest Standards

By David Onek, originally published on Calitics, May 16, 2011.

Former San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón's "conflict of interest challenge" continues to grow with yet another allegation of police misconduct by officers serving under his command.

The latest allegation stems from a video showing officers allegedly improperly searching a residential hotel room and taking property from the room that was not marked into evidence - and then allegedly lying about it under oath.

These serious allegations of police misconduct require a serious response - and Interim District Attorney George Gascón can't be serious if he proposes to investigate officers who were under his command at the time of the alleged misconduct.

When similar allegations arose last month, Gascón said he was under no obligation to recuse his office from any potential criminal prosecution. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in to review the allegations of misconduct, Gascón said he was stepping away from investigating those earlier allegations because of "resource" issues while continuing to insist that he had no conflict of interest. He has not defined what resources he was lacking.

From day one, Gascón had the clear obligation to recuse himself from investigating the Police Department he so recently led. And that obligation only becomes more pressing as the number and scope of allegations of police misconduct during Gascón's tenure as police chief widens.

The National District Attorneys Association's National Prosecution Standards clearly states:

"The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation...where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor's neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised."

In my career as a criminal justice expert I have learned that our community is safest when the police and prosecutors earn - and keep - the public's trust. Our appointed District Attorney undermines years of progress in building trust when he refuses to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest.

Gascón's failure to address conflict of interest issues was also highlighted by recent disclosures that his former campaign consultant potentially violated city ethics laws by lobbying him on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association, the police union. The campaign consultant also potentially violated the same ethics rules in lobbying another former client, San Francisco's City Attorney. The City Attorney acted quickly to recuse himself from any investigation regarding the matter. Gascón has taken no action to recuse himself, despite the nearly identical fact set.

The people of San Francisco deserve and demand a District Attorney who will avoid clear conflicts of interest as a matter of policy - rather than personal whim. Gascón must recuse himself as a matter of policy from police misconduct cases of officers who served under his command. And Gascón is under an ethical obligation to develop and publish a clear conflict of interest policy.

Onek's The One

Imagine a District Attorney who wouldn't rely on knee-jerk, overly punitive responses to crime and violence but would instead bring the various stakeholders together and forge strong partnerships with the community as well as law enforcement.

Imagine a District Attorney whose goal was not to put more people behind bars but to find creative ways to to reduce the inflated prisoner population and then reinvest part of the savings into community and law enforcement resources to lower the recidivism rate and make the community safer.

Imagine a District Attorney who understands that the death penalty is a costly, ineffective and arbitrary, and who believes that the misguided Three Strikes Initiative must be reformed because it is a disproportionate punishment that wastes "precious resources to unnecessarily incarcerate minor offenders who pose little threat to society for huge periods of time – and draining resources away from the law enforcement agencies, community organizations and schools that can truly prevent crime and keep us safe."

Imagine a District Attorney who understands and is not afraid to talk about the concept of Restorative Justice, which instead of seeking to punish those who break the law, focuses on those who have been harmed, figuring out their needs and whose obligation it is to meet those needs, and then bringing all the multiple stakeholders together to engage in a reparative process.

David Onek is a candidate for District Attorney of San Francisco.  He is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  He has developed a thoughtful, progressive approach to these issues.  David is currently a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice.  He is a former San Francisco Police Commissioner and also served in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Office of Criminal Justice.

Go to his website to learn more about and contribute to David's campaign.

Knee-Jerk Responses vs. Smarter Safety Policies

By David Onek, originally posted on Calitics, April 22, 2011.

[David Onek is a candidate for District Attorney of San Francisco.  David is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  As the article below demonstrates, he has developed a thoughtful, progressive approach to criminal justice and public safety issues.  David is currently a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice.  He is a former San Francisco Police Commissioner and also served in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Office of Criminal Justice.  Learn more about David and his candidacy here.]

Last September, the San Francisco Police Department - under the command of former chief George Gascón - submitted a proposal responding to the uptick in violence outside a handful of San Francisco nightclubs.

The proposal was supposed to be heard this week by the city's Entertainment Commission, but Mayor Ed Lee appropriately delayed the hearing for more debate.

The violence outside of nightclubs is a serious problem that must be addressed in a thoughtful way. But the SFPD's flawed proposal is a knee-jerk response that will not make us safer and will violate our privacy rights. We need to understand why a city as progressive on policy as San Francisco is being offered flawed political solutions to serious public safety challenges.

A Plan Likely to Backfire

The SFPD proposal mandates venues to swipe patrons' identification cards and keep this personal information on record for subsequent police review and to place metal detectors at some venues with occupancy levels exceeding 100, among other requirements.

This proposal is extremely problematic on a number of levels - the first of which is that it will likely backfire. Most nightclub violence takes place outside, not inside the clubs. Creating bottlenecks and barriers to entry will have the effect of keeping more trouble outside. And creating an environment so unwelcoming that many law-abiding people will stay home or go to other cities, while some potential troublemakers will simply go to unregulated clubs, could make our streets more dangerous at night.

The police proposal has been rightly criticized by the California Music and Culture Association (CMAC), which is proposing more sensible reforms. The SFPD proposal has also come under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, which has weighed in on very real First Amendment and privacy concerns. Choices of art and music venues often reflect private political and personal preferences; requiring that venues store patrons' identification information thus raises serious constitutional issues.

As the father of two young daughters, I don't make it out to clubs as much as I used to. But I know what a vital role nighttime venues play in our culture, our identity and our economy.

We don't want to put responsible club owners out of business with costly proposals that do not improve public safety. Instead, we should be working collaboratively with these responsible owners on real solutions, such as enhanced training of security personnel, improved lighting and better coordination with the SFPD. I also believe we should look more closely at the licensing status of clubs where crime patterns emerge - and be more aggressive about revoking the permits of those operators who don't provide a safe environment for their patrons and neighbors.

These are practical steps that would make us safer by targeting the problem clubs, not every venue, and they are steps that would not violate the First Amendment and privacy rights of people who patronize San Francisco's clubs.


A Political Proposal

But instead of practical solutions, the nightclub plan exemplifies the reactive "do something - do anything" mentality that so often creates "safety" policies that actually make us less safe. If it is adopted in anything like its current form, it will be yet another example of knee-jerk responses beating out thoughtful policies.

Our police chief at the time - George Gascón - was under pressure to "do something." But instead of a reasoned and collaborative solution, what was proposed was simply more politics. The public and the politicians demanded action - so the police proposed action even though their proposals would not make us safer, would violate our constitutional rights and would be tied up in the courts for years.

The best tool to create a safer community is not to violate the privacy rights of San Franciscans who contribute to our culture and economy by patronizing our clubs, but to enlist club owners and the broader community to work collaboratively with law enforcement to support a safer environment around the clubs.

We need to reduce the violence outside of nightclubs. But let's do so with thoughtful policies - not knee-jerk, political responses.

[Related posts:  Taking On Three Strikes Reform]

Taking On Three Strikes Reform

David Onek is a candidate for District Attorney of San Francisco.  As readers of this blog may know, I generally am not a huge fan of prosecutors.  But David would not be your typical prosecutor.  He is a leading expert on criminal and juvenile justice, with experience in policy-making, academia and government.  He has developed a thoughtful, progressive approach to these issues, with an emphasis on bringing the various stakeholders together and forging strong partnerships with the community as well as law enforcement.  David is currently a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice.  He is a former San Francisco Police Commissioner and also served in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Office of Criminal Justice.

I am excited and honored to introduced David Onek as a guest blogger on Fair and Unbalanced.  Learn more about David and his candidacy here.  Read about why he believes that California's Three Strikes law must be reformed below.  And stay tuned for more. 

It's Time To Reform Three Strikes

by David Onek, originally posted on Calitics, Feb. 23, 2011

California voters overwhelmingly passed the Three Strikes initiative in 1994 based on the promise that it would take repeat violent offenders off the streets.

But now, more than fifteen years after the initiative’s passage, we have the benefit of facts to help us understand the true impact of Three Strikes.

Most Californians already know that in the wake of Three Strikes the cost of corrections has soared. Our state prison budget is now so high that California spends as much on prisons as we do on higher education.

But many Californians are surprised to learn that, under Three Strikes, Curtis Wilkerson of Los Angeles was sentenced to life for petty theft of a pair of socks; that Shane Taylor of Tulare was sentenced to life for simple possession of 0.1 gram of methamphetamine; or that Greg Taylor of Los Angeles was sentenced to life for attempting to break into a soup kitchen to get something to eat.

In fact, the majority of those put away for life under Three Strikes – over 4,000 people total – committed a minor, non-violent third strike. These non-violent third strikers will, according to the California state auditor, cost the state at least $4.8 billion over the next 25 years – almost $200 million per year.

The people named above have an advantage that the vast majority of three strikers do not -- they are all clients of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School’s Mills Legal Clinic. Under the direction of Project co-founder Michael Romano, Stanford law students have helped get a dozen non-violent third strikers released from prison after having their sentences reduced.

They are not being released because they are innocent. As Romano said on the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast,

“Our clients are, in almost every circumstance, absolutely guilty. We’re not going into court and saying that they didn’t do it. What we’re saying is that the punishment that they received for this petty crime is disproportionate.”

This disproportionate punishment is unjust, and it is bankrupting our state. We are wasting precious resources to unnecessarily incarcerate minor offenders who pose little threat to society for huge periods of time – and draining resources away from the law enforcement agencies, community organizations and schools that can truly prevent crime and keep us safe.

Simply put, it is time to reform Three Strikes – so that it is focused on the serious and violent repeat offenders we all agree society must be protected from. Because Three Strikes was passed by a voter initiative, it can only be changed by initiative. In the past, Three Strikes was viewed as untouchable. But now, with the state facing fiscal catastrophe, and Romano and his students bringing attention to the unjust extremes of the law with each new client that gets released, there is momentum for change.

Romano thinks that there is another ingredient necessary for successful reform: political leadership. He says that “with a few notable exceptions, there has been very little leadership on this issue from our elected law enforcement leaders.”

Now is the time to show the leadership what it will take to return to sensible, cost-effective and fair criminal justice polices in California.