Today the House decided to kill a bill that would have expanded a judge’s power to dismiss cases for low-level crimes, such as theft or trespass, when defendants have complied with certain court conditions. If passed, the bill would have potentially helped reduce the number of people with mental illness languishing in jails, a practice that has cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in federal fines.
The bill died partly because KING 5 and the Seattle Times Editorial Board spent weeks fear-mongering about the legislation in sloppily reported pieces based on talking points from Republican City Attorney Ann Davison, wrongly claiming the bill silences prosecutors and victims.
In their coverage, both outlets showed a lack of understanding of the proposed legislation. KING 5 displayed its misunderstanding when the station described the bill as a debate over whether to send people convicted of a crime to jail or a court-ordered program. That framing is just factually wrong, as the bill involves a question of how to divert people out of the justice system before a conviction. As an aside, KING 5 could benefit from more diversity in their stock footage, because in one of their stories about this bill they chose to use only shots of Black men to represent defendants. The station did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Darya Farivar (D-Seattle) called the bill in question, House Bill 1994, a pretty “reasonable” piece of legislation that didn’t deserve the frothing backlash from these outlets. The bill simply asks prosecutors to justify their prosecution of low-level offenses, especially when it comes to cases involving people who committed a crime as a result of poverty, addiction, or a mental illness. Farivar hopes to end the practice of just sticking people with behavioral health problems in jail over and over again, and instead allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior prior to conviction.
The Fear-mongerer’s Argument
The bill has the backing of the Governor’s office, as it could help the state come into compliance with the Trueblood v. DSHS settlement, which requires the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services to provide timely mental health restoration to people in jail. About 11% of Trueblood class members enter the criminal justice system on misdemeanor charges, Farivar said.
But according to KING 5 and the Seattle Times Editorial Board, this bill could make people want to move out of Seattle and make the misdemeanor court system “even more dysfunctional.” Those outlets, along with prosecutors across the state, offered three main complaints about the legislation: (1) It leaves prosecutors and victims out of the conversation. (2) The bill violates the constitutional separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches by giving the judiciary a power usually reserved for prosecutors. (3) People with extensive criminal histories should not benefit from this bill.
The Truth of the Matter
Let’s talk about what HB 1994 actually does, because honestly it’s not so cool that it “circumvents prosecutors’ role in the court,” as the Seattle Times Editorial Board put it. Far from silencing prosecutors, the bill gives them an opportunity to argue in front of a judge about why they should be allowed to prosecute a person for a low-level offense. And contrary to the claims of the legislation’s detractors, judges cannot unilaterally consider whether to dismiss these cases.
Under the legislation, either the prosecutor or the defense attorney must first ask the judge to divert a defendant out of the criminal justice system. The defendant must agree to certain court conditions, such as engaging with service providers or treatment, and then, after up to a year of court monitoring, the judge can dismiss the case. This bill applies only to the lowest of low-level crimes. Judges could not dismiss charges in cases involving domestic violence, stalking, driving while intoxicated, or in cases involving violence or guns. The law also would not apply when a person pleads down from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.
Still, Davison herself wrongly characterized the bill as somehow taking prosecutors out of the conversation, saying “defense can move for this or the court can move for this and prosecutors cannot say ‘No, we don’t agree.’” Not to harp on the point, but, again, the court cannot move to dismiss the cases without one of the sides asking for it, and the prosecutors can absolutely oppose a defense attorney’s request for the judge to dismiss the case. Plus, if a person failed to comply with the court-ordered conditions, then prosecutors could present that evidence to the judge, and the judge could end the continuance and allow prosecutors to resume their case.
Both outlets also claimed victims might feel sidelined if courts dismissed these cases, with KING 5 even tracking down two residents who might consider moving because of recent property crimes and the lack of “accountability” in Seattle. However, in an interview with The Stranger, Seattle Municipal Court Judge Damon Shadid said that complainants or victims very rarely show up to make their voices heard just for low-level property crime. Regardless, Shadid emphasized that judges have a constitutional obligation to hear from any victim, and HB 1994 allows space for victims to argue that a defendant should face criminal prosecution.
When testifying before lawmakers in support of the bill, Shadid addressed the question of whether the law violated the separation of powers doctrine, since a prosecutor acts as part of the executive branch. Shadid acknowledged multiple legal theories might exist on this point, but he argued that the Legislature passing a law allowing judges to dismiss these cases would make it constitutional. Plus, Shadid pointed out that judges already have the power to dismiss cases under a law that’s similar to HB 1994. That law is called “a compromise of misdemeanor,” and it basically says that a court can dismiss a charge against someone in some cases where a defendant can prove they’ve paid restitution to the victim. However, the result of this law means that only people with the financial means to pay for restitution can avoid a criminal conviction.
“Under a compromise of misdemeanor, you’re asking a poor person with no services to pay a fine to have their case dismissed. With HB 1994, I would be able to say, let me get you an ID, connect you to AppleCare, educate you about treatment and housing services, and if you do all those things, I can dismiss your case,” Shadid said.
The final part of HB 1994 that irked both the Seattle Times Editorial Board as well as lawmakers such as Rep. Jenny Graham (R-Spokane) revolved around the fact that the bill offered these services to people with both long and short criminal histories. Both Graham and the editorial board balked at the idea of the court cutting someone a break even if they had 30 misdemeanor convictions.
However, someone living unhoused or with a behavioral health diagnosis can rack up convictions pretty quick. Carmen Pacheco Jones is the executive director of the Health and Justice Recovery Alliance in Spokane, a nonprofit working to reduce recidivism and support people in recovery. For years, Pacheco Jones lived on the streets and amassed more than 30 misdemeanor convictions. She accumulated 12 of those convictions in about six months for a variety of crimes of survival, including trespassing, loitering, and shoplifting–she stole things such as feminine hygiene products, a handful of fruit she ate in a store without paying, and once a pair of shoes.
“It makes me sad when I remember it, and it was so needless, in that if there were alternatives, such as access to food, clothing, and hygiene products, I wouldn’t have stolen them,” Pacheco Jones said.
When people live unhoused their very survival becomes criminal, she argued.
But KING 5 did not speak to anyone who may have benefited from this bill in the past or in the future. Instead, they appeared content to flash some pictures of Black men across the screen and then wrongly characterize what the bill actually does. Meanwhile, the Seattle Times Editorial Board wrongly claimed that HB 1994 silenced victims and also gasped about the bill circumventing prosecutors, which it doesn’t. Great work, everybody.
“Both Graham and the editorial board balked at the idea of the court cutting someone a break even if they had 30 misdemeanor convictions.”
As if most judges would actually do that anyway. Opposition to this bill seems to think judges are all bleeding heart dupes. It’s sad they have so little faith in a core component of our democracy, the courts.
Completely missing from this story is the context, especially in Seattle, of many chronic offenders cycling through the court system, with no changes in their destructive behaviors:
‘The sample group of prolific offenders analyzed here had consistent patterns of criminal behavior – they very often committed the same crimes in the same neighborhood over a period of months or years. In some cases, a single individual had 40 or more criminal cases related to a single neighborhood, and often a small multi-block area, over the course of several years. In the most extreme cases, a single individual was responsible for near constant harassment of a business or public establishment over an extended period. Police reports for these incidents often note that the suspect is “well known to officers” and sometimes directly ask for the justice system to provide relief for the community. Instead, the individuals sampled in this report cycled through the criminal justice system with little accountability and no apparent impact on their behavior.’
(https://downtownseattle.org/files/advocacy/system-failure-prolific-offender-report-feb-2019.pdf)
Given this recent local history, and Seattle having voted for a Republican City Attorney over the Stranger’s abolitionist candidate, it’s little wonder this legislation died.
You have to remember that both the TV media and the Times work for Putin.
They don’t want progressive democrats, they want autocrats they can bribe
I’m not sure what Ashely is hoping to gain here but her story basically validated the concerns listed. A prosecutor could oppose this and be overruled by the judge. That’s a fact. When it comes to separation of powers there is also an issue “Shadid acknowledged multiple legal theories might exist on this point, but he argued that the Legislature passing a law allowing judges to dismiss these cases would make it constitutional.” Newsflash, just because the legislature passes a law doesn’t make it constitutional and of course the oft discussed “repeat offenders” are definitely part of this program.
The real issue here is the message its sending as well. We don’t trust prosecutors to make the right decisions regarding charging suspects or pushing for convictions. We especially don’t like non progressive DA’s who don’t share our values that these are all crimes of poverty and therefore all conduct is excused no matter how many times they do it because we as a society have failed to fix poverty and addiction. It’s insulting honestly and it does diminish the impact of these crimes to victims and I’m glad it failed.
The bill died because it’s an election year, and Democrats learned their lesson with ‘Defund the Police.’
@4 “The real issue here is the message its sending as well. We don’t trust prosecutors to make the right decisions regarding charging suspects or pushing for convictions.”
You could say the same thing about trial by jury. Many states grant judges the statutory power to dismiss cases in the interest of justice. In an adversarial system it only makes sense to have a neutral arbiter with the authority to prevent abuses by either side.
I’m not seeing any floor activity on HB 1994 since a proposed amendment at 6:32 p.m. last night? Normally the House Floor Activity Report is updated in more or less real time.
@6 so rather than trust the judicial process and the checks and balances the founders of our country established we will give sole authority to one person to make a decision based on what they think is right (which may or may not run counter to actual laws established by the legislature). There used to be a word when you concentrated power in one part of the government so you can get the outcome you have preordained but it’s become so overused I don’t know that it matters anymore.
@9 if you want to talk about checks and balances established by the founders what about how this state allows felony prosecution by information rather than forcing prosecutors to present their case to a grand jury and secure an indictment? Washington has effectively abandoned an important check and delegated sole responsibility for felony charging decisions to the executive branch. Would you support legislation changing that?
Judges already have the power to defer (and later dismiss) a misdemeanor sentence, even if the prosecutor objects. See RCW 3.66.067. Judges can dismiss certain charges even if the prosecutor objects pursuant to a compromise of misdemeanor. See RCW 10.22. Then there is deferred prosecutions under RCW 10.05, which again, can be granted despite a prosecutor objecting. And prosecutors typically offer most defendants charged with petty crimes a pre-trial diversion (or stipulated order of continuance as they call it in Seattle). One more form of deferral wasn’t going to change anything.
@10 that’s whataboutism and has nothing to do with this topic.
well
at Least
we could
have Public
Floggings, right?
if someone’s
Guilty, they’re
fucking GUILTY.
this damn
country’s get-
ting Way too Soft.
@11: “One more form of deferral wasn’t going to change anything.”
The Stranger’s attempt to get a City Attorney for Seattle who simply wouldn’t prosecute most misdemeanors failed, and failed so badly, Seattle’s voters elected a Republican instead. So, having failed completely at Seattle’s ballot box, the Stranger now looks for any and all means to limit that prosecutor’s power. This whole bill and advocacy thereof was another attempt to counteract the decision of Seattle’s voters, because the Stranger happens not to like the choice those voters made.
@12 referencing the founders at all was non sequitur but I figured I’d just go with it. Maybe a better example is the 4th Amendment which “give(s) sole authority to one person to make a decision based on what they think is right” before executive branch agents can search or arrest a person. Obviously the founders agreed with me that it’s important for a neutral magistrate to be involved to prevent prosecutorial abuses. But again, it’s 2024, I’m really not sure the founders’ opinion on specific current legislation is relevant or even knowable.
@14 you really think state legislators proposed a bill just to counteract the decision of Seattle voters?
@15: I was really referring mostly to the Stranger’s advocacy of this unnecessary (see @11) bill, but given the WA state leg’s long history of “Stick It To Seattle” bills, sure, why not?
Also, you get points for attempting to conflate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against illegal search and seizure with this redundant bill. Desperate much?
@15 the 4th amendment is yet another example of checks and balances. Allowing the judiciary to check the power of the executive. If you are trying to undermine the fact that the proposed legislation is most likely unconstitutional you are not doing a very good job.
“[T]he station described the bill as a debate over whether to send people convicted of a crime to jail or a court-ordered program. That framing is just factually wrong, as the bill involves a question of how to divert people out of the justice system before a conviction.”
How can you not laugh at this? “It’s not going to send convicted criminals to a program – we’re just not going to convict them at all!” It’s obvious the intent here is to undermine the ability to prosecute criminals. Everyone is just going to leave societies where it’s common to have “crimes of survival” – and while only the most “sympathetic” of Pacheco Jones’s 30+ criminal convictions are mentioned here, she’s also admitted having her five kids taken away during her addict era, a bit of selective reporting we might compare to the complaint about King 5’s stock footage not including enough white criminals.
“With HB 1994, I would be able to say, let me get you an ID, connect you to AppleCare, educate you about treatment and housing services, and if you do all those things, I can dismiss your case,” says another thrilling offer. After the “victimless” crime of theft, we can skip consequences and quickly get the criminal a bunch more free stuff on your dime. Can’t imagine why this bill failed.
@16 I’m not surprised you didn’t understand what I was getting at but the amendment requires oversight of police/prosecutor decision making by a judge. So the idea that legislation permitting oversight of prosecutor decision making by a judge would be unconstitutional seems dubious at best.
@19 it’s not the same thing and I’m loving the implication that by disagreeing with you “I’m not smart enough to get it” Why do progressives always think people who don’t share their point of view are just dumb hicks? The 4th amendment protects the rights of citizens by making sure the judiciary agrees with the decision to search a home (creating a check). This legislation would undermine the judicial process by consolidating all power in one person (removing checks). It’s really not that difficult.
@20 if, in a pending case, the prosecutor offers a plea deal and recommended sentence, is the judge obligated to accept the plea and follow the recommendation? And, if not, how is that different from what this bill proposed in terms of the separation of powers argument you’re trying to make?
Ok, so this is what’s called a backlash. It happens when some young, ignorant folk, repeat a failed policy that didn’t work before and will not work now. People who have seen this play out, understandably know it’s a bunch of bs.
@21: The difference is given in the headline post: “The bill violates the constitutional separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches by giving the judiciary a power usually reserved for prosecutors.” The Stranger doesn’t agree, but instead of addressing it, dances around it: “Shadid acknowledged multiple legal theories might exist on this point, but he argued that the Legislature passing a law allowing judges to dismiss these cases would make it constitutional.” As noted in a comment, above, the legislature can’t just magically make legislation constitutional.
@20 better yet, if a defendant chooses a bench trial and the judge acquits him or her can the prosecutor override that decision? Do they have any recourse or is the judge’s verdict final? And how is that different in terms of separation of powers?
@23 that’s just an opinion statement but let’s dive in anyway: what exactly is the “power usually reserved for prosecutors” and how is that power not also given to the judiciary in the other situations I cited?
@21 in this example the prosecutor was able to make a judgement about filing charges and then the judge is able to decide whether the plea agreement is valid (they can always reject it). The defense and the victims are also allowed to provide input. There is a process.
@24 Again there is a judicial process here. They can choose a bench trail and the evidence is presented before a verdict is rendered and of course they can appeal if they don’t like the verdict like any other trial.
Again, the legislation proposed puts everything into the hands of one person. It undermines the entire judicial process. Do you honestly think that can’t be abused? I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with your posts.
@26 what the bill proposed is a process as well, where both sides can present arguments and a judge makes the ultimate decision. Just like in those other situations. It’s no different in that respect.
@24: This has become comical. Do you understand the differences between, “going to trial,” and, “not going to trial”?
@27: So what’s the need for this legislation, then?
@28 you gonna answer the questions in 25?
@29: Instead of begging other commenters here to explain this topic to you, you could just try reading the article in the Seattle Times, linked in the quote @23:
“Last year, as legislators hammered out how much to punish drug possession, they agreed to allow people charged with drug possession to be diverted to treatment before trial, but said a prosecutor must consent.
“Farivar’s proposal is resurrecting a similar debate from last year’s battle over whether prosecutors must grant permission for dismissal before a trial has taken place or a defendant has pleaded guilty.”
[…]
“Except, when it comes to HB 1994, the debate is not just over drug possession, but other misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, as well.”
[…]
“Prosecutors argue that only they should be able to dismiss charges before trial, pointing to the state constitution, court rules and the code of judicial conduct.”
All you have to do is read the material before you comment on it. Give it a try sometime!
Now, feel free to answer the questions @28. Good luck with that. (Hint: that last quote, above, contains the phrase, “before trial.” As in, well, you know, before a trial.)
@30 so assuming you took your own advice and read the material you must be aware that currently there exists a statutory provision allowing a court to dismiss a case before plea or trial in a procedure referred to as “compromise of misdemeanor.” When can we expect RCW 10.22.010 (originally enacted in 1854) to be struck down as unconstitutional?
@31: Yes, congratulations, you accurately parroted mention of some of the relevant, already-existing legislation cited @11. Hence my as-yet unanswered question to you, @28: “So what’s the need for this legislation, then?”
@32 again I assume you took your own advice and read the material, so you must have seen this part:
“Shadid pointed out that judges already have the power to dismiss cases under a law that’s similar to HB 1994. That law is called “a compromise of misdemeanor,” and it basically says that a court can dismiss a charge against someone in some cases where a defendant can prove they’ve paid restitution to the victim. However, the result of this law means that only people with the financial means to pay for restitution can avoid a criminal conviction.”
In other words this bill would reduce class inequality in the criminal system by giving people without means an opportunity to earn a dismissal, like people with money already can
The bill died because it was a stupid bill that would’ve made crime worse.
@33: If the legislature wants to change the “compromise of misdemeanor” law, they can do that. Granting a judge latitude to misinterpret/misapply many existing laws, simply because the judge feels his ends justify his means, is a really, really bad idea. (That’s where I was going with my “need for legislation” question.)
I’m glad this bill died, and I hope it does not return.