By Eric Siddall
Elizabeth Holmes convinced wealthy Silicon Valley investors, two former secretaries of state, one former bank CEO, and one former four-star general that she was revolutionizing the entire healthcare industry. She promised that with one drop of blood, her invention could run hundreds of tests. Because of her grandiose promises, she received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments from these celebrated individuals. Some would also serve on her board and repeatedly vouch for her. But there was one problem. She was a fraud.
Notably, it wasn’t any of the rich or powerful who blew the whistle on Holmes. It was frontline lab techs. They saw that the wunderkind’s product was an abysmal, fraudulent failure. When they raised the issue in an email directly to Holmes, she brushed it aside — and forwarded it to the COO. The COO responded to the techs’ valid concerns by belittling their grasp of math and science. Ironically, it was these lab techs who worked with a journalist to expose Holmes. It was these same lab techs who would be vindicated when Holmes was convicted of fraud in federal court.
Like Holmes, George Gascón cultivated support for his campaign for district attorney of Los Angeles with grandiose promises. He claimed that his innovative policies would drastically reduce prison populations, reduce government waste, improve the environment, reduce racial inequality, and make our communities safer. Like Holmes, Gascón’s vision of an industry-wide sea change drew support from celebrated individuals: wealthy Silicon Valley investors, renowned professors, and Hollywood celebrities. However, like the lab techs, frontline prosecutors have been raising serious concerns.
On his first day as district attorney, Gascón reduced the possible consequences for nearly every single criminal offense in the county of Los Angeles, from theft to murder. Shooting victims, rape victims and stalking victims saw their assailants’ possible sentences plummet by dozens of years. Parents of murdered children saw their perpetrators sentences drop from life without parole to parole within 15 years.
To be sure, it wasn’t Gascón or his advisers who saw the immediate devastating impact of these policies. The people who have seen the impact of his policies are his frontline prosecutors. These 800 civil servants, who have dedicated their careers to public safety, are now forced by Gascón’s directives to undermine it. As a result of these directives, they have seen people convicted of heinous crimes released with minimal consequence, they have seen others released without the support they need to successfully reintegrate, and they have seen it time and time again.
Frontline prosecutors in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office are frustrated and alarmed. They’re frustrated because they’re told by Gascón that their concerns are “anti-science,” much in the same way that the Holmes’ COO dismissed the lab techs. They are alarmed because, in the face of skyrocketing murders and shootings, it appears as though Gascón is locking up the tools to address the problem and throwing away the key.
These feelings aren’t limited to L.A. County prosecutors. Others who work in the justice system – including court reporters, judges, and yes, even defense attorneys – are alarmed by the negative impact of these policies. Like the prosecutors, they are horrified not just at Gascón’s aversion to meaningful accountability, but also his inaction in the face of a desperate need for a major course-correction.
It is this collective frustration and fear that compelled the frontline prosecutors of the LADA’s Office to take the extraordinary step of voting to support the recall and removal from office of George Gascón. In the final vote, 97.9 percent supported his removal. A mere twelve voted against supporting the recall. This vote was not taken lightly. It was taken over a year into Gascón’s tenure in office. Prior to the vote, Gascón was invited to meet with frontline prosecutors to address their concerns. Like Holmes, Gascón brushed off and belittled the request.
Perhaps Gascón should heed the words of the Holmes’ prosecutor – Jina Choi, director of the SEC’s San Francisco regional office. When announcing charges against Holmes, Choi underscored the danger of visionary promises, reminding us, “[i]nnovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”
Perhaps Gascón should stop talking about how he might make us safer in the future, listen to his frontline deputies, and talk how he can make us safer today.
About the author: Eric W. Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.
–
Tim Scott says
Good grief AVTimes, I hope you are charging the disgruntled ADAs for publishing their yellow sheets.
KayDee says
Disgruntly? You cant handle the truth. Gason is a criminal and he should be in handcuffs. Happy to see people speaking out on him! smh
Tim Scott says
Yeah, disgruntled. The DAs office was a cesspool of corruption and the ADAs set their strategy day one as “there will be no reforms here” and they have done nothing but defend their gravy train…With emotional fact free outbursts like “he’s a criminal” or “he should be in handcuffs” and endless repetition.
I honestly don’t care much about Gascon, but it’s clear that if we are going to clean up the DAs office we been some way to just fire the ADAs wholesale.
Stinger says
Exactly how is Gascon a ‘criminal?’ What specific statute of law has he violated?
Seriously, now, people. You don’t like his changes in policy, which are borne out by multiple studies over decades of criminal justice research? You don’t care about reasonable policies geared towards reducing crime for the entire community and prefer a more bloodthirsty, vengeance oriented, idea of criminal justice prosecution and a punitive state? I get it. I can understand the satisfying of one’s natural emotional reaction regarding criminal acts for vengeance, instead of restoration of both parties involved to prevent future incidents. I would recommend using less heart and more brain when working with such ideas, but I can see the emotional allure.
But claiming such policy changes to be, somehow, ‘criminal’ is a bit much.
Stinger burns oxygen says
You are advocating that criminals should have rights? If people don’t agree with that you come unglued. Here try this , my name is stinger and I like criminals more than victims. There it’s fixed for you.
Tim Scott says
Guess what…GTFO and head for Russia, because yes criminals DO have rights in this country. More importantly, alleged criminals here DEFINITELY have rights and it is critical that everyone protects those rights.
As to Stinger “coming unglued,” I have seen very few posts from him that were anything but calm and reasonable, where the posts AT him, including yours, seem to regularly fly into emotional fact free ranting.
Stinger burns oxygen for sure…perhaps more than you since it appears your brain is in an anaerobic state.
Stinger says
Ever heard of this little read document called the United States Constitution? Seems chock full of rights for people accused of crimes. Lord knows your mango moron and his cronies are sure happily using those very rights you decry.
Would you like more victims’ rights? I might suggest researching restorative justice… THAT approach to criminal justice oughta just make your head explode.
Mike says
@ Stinger…read the darn laws and know the truth. Gascons policies violate the California Constitution, specifically with regard to victims rights. His policies also violate numerous sentencing laws in the penal code. One DA does not have the authority to usurp the law by refusing to enforce it. It’s only a matter of time before he’s run out of office, sued, or criminally charged, or all of the above. As for the “science” you claim his policies are based on; his policies are based on the Scandinavian model of criminal justice. While it may work in Scandinavian countries with homogenous populations, it does not work here in the USA. Even Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark are having crime issues now due to an influx of foreign refugees who refuse to assimilate to the Scandinavian culture. Science only works when the environmental controls are the same. Example: we know solar power works in the Antelope Valley because we have Sun 300 plus days out of the year and plenty of land for solar farms. But you can’t say that it will work in Europe because they don’t have the land and they only get a quarter of sun exposure we do per year. So “science” doesn’t always work. Stop listening to CNN
Stinger says
Which laws? There are an awful lot of them. That’s why lawyers specialize in specific areas of law… What’s yours? You make specific claims of violation, yet do not have any specifics to back them up. What section(s) of the California Constitution, or any other laws, is Gascon violating?
As for your claim on the criminological studies Gascon is using, you might want to go research a bit more on that “Scandinavian” stuff, ’cause the research was done here in the good ol’ USofA in study after study over decades by our own DoJ, through the NIJ and the results are available through the NCJRS for anybody who cares to actually go and read them. Obviously, I have read many of them as there are way too many to get through all of them, at this point. And, yes, I have looked into the alternative models and would point out that their recidivism rate is remarkably low – which is the point of a criminal justice system: reduce crime.
If you really want to blow your vengeance-oriented, reactionary little mind, try reading some of the studies on ‘Restorative Justice.’ As you are clearly ignorant of the subject in which you claim knowledge, that idea oughta just make your head explode on the spot.
Stinger says
Oh, and, “science,” may not always work, but science DOES – by definition! If you understood the most basic principles of the scientific method, you’d know better.
Mike says
@ Stinger, you’re wrong again. I know more than most about so called restorative justice. I’ve read many of Howard Zehr’s publications on the topic. As you might know he is widely regarded as the pioneer of restorative justice in the USA. The DOJ and most University studies on this topic are based on his theory. His theory is based on the Scandanavian model of restorative justice where he focuses mainly on the New Zealand model. This is mentioned numerous times in several of his publishings. So you know not what you speak. Your propensity for projecting falsehoods is the only form of viciousness in this thread.
As per your request to cite specific laws to back my claim, my response is: do your own homework. Open the California Penal Code and find the sentencing laws yourself. They are there. Don’t use the cheap liberal tactic of labeling a claim as dubious simply because you’re too lazy to find the information yourself. My education is in criminal justice and public policy. I know the laws better than most. It’s not my job to draw you a picture. Mmkay?
Lastly, the general public doesn’t need scientific studies to show them that restorative justice doesn’t work here in California or any other state. Simply look at the sharp spikes in crime in the liberal cities/counties where DA’s like Gascon have implemented their version of restorative justice. It’s not rocket science. You’re either ignorant or deliberately indifferent to the glaring truth if you deny what’s happening. It’s only until you become a victim of crime that you will realize the truth.
Tim Scott says
LOL…c’mon Stinger…Mike already said which laws…the “darn ones.” Between such specific references and his claim to “know more than most” has he not bullied his way to victory here?
Oh, wait.
Yeah, the facts are still on your side Stinger. Carry on.
Mike says
Tim Scott, labeling others as something you actually are and do on a daily basis is the purest form of bullying. It’s obvious enough that you believe if repeat a statement or idea often enough it will become fact. But it’s really just your opinion.
Stingers claims contain no facts. Vague and general statements, made in quick succession, might sound convincing but when out to test, they crumble like sandcastles. The audacity of both of you have to demand that invite specific laws to back my claim is repulsive and indicative of your convoluted view of justice. Meanwhile, you both make far less substantive claims citing no source yourselves. I told you where to find the information. Now find it, read it, and see for yourselves. Is it not enough that Gascons policies have already been found by a LA County Superior Court Judge to be in violation of the law? You still need me to draw pictures for you guys? You’re both really good a stringing together words to make great sentences. But they’re lacking in actual substance. You’re like a couple of village idiots here.
Tim Scott says
Mike, assuming you are the regular Mike, you have yet to post a fact, ever.
America's Most Cautious Looking Up says
I’m looking up to avoid being hit in case someone falls out of a helicopter (inside joke).
Free helicopter rides for commies says
Commies can fall from the helicopters
Tim Scott says
So might Mike. Fingers crossed.
Stinger says
*sigh* I get wearied by RWNJ’s who make claims but then demand someone else go look up the evidence for them. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up.
Now then, my criminologically handicapped churl, the restorative justice of reference is actually based on the Native American formats now already in use for decades in certain tribes… successfully, I might add. I had the opportunity, during a DoJ Criminal Justice Conference, to go and personally tour one set of facilities in Arizona with lots of vacancies since they adopted their system. It was truly impressive. I would add, though, that to do such outside of the confines of such a community would require a sea change in how most Americans view criminal justice and what the system is supposed to accomplish. I offer your own hyperbolized comments as a prime example of this basic comprehension failure in that you demand “justice” that can come only in the form of retributive punishment while claiming to care about “victims’ rights.” This approach does nothing to alleviate either the potential for future crime nor the pain and suffering of the victim, other than some grim feeling of vengeance… They’re still victimized and unrestored.
So… Let’s put this all aside for a moment and do a quick mission check: What is the primary function of the criminal justice system in a given society?
A) To react to crimes and punish offenders,
or
B) To reduce crime within the community to as much a degree as may be possible.
Tim Scott says
C) To allow people to satisfy their blood lust vicariously while sitting safely on their couch and letting the cops do the dirty work
That would be Mike’s pick if he were to be honest for the first time, including with himself.
Mike says
Stinger…again you reference a system that works in a homogenous society. Native Americans share deep common traditions that bind them. Yet they commit atrocities against one another just like the rest of American society. California is using the scandanavian version of restorative justice. Just go to the Ca. Dept. Of Coorections and Rehab website and look at the source material for their rehabilitative programs model. It’s all based on UC studies that originated from the New Zealand model.
Your ideas are grandiose and not based in reality. Man has been killing each other since the dawn of time. That will never ever change no matter how much you might want it. Especially when the members of society share no cultural ties and refuse to agree on some level of assimilation in order to form a foundation of communal identity and respect. It’s ironic that the same groups advocating for restorative justice also advocate for open borders with no requirements to adhere to certain norms. The only constant value is their utter disregard for established laws and norms. You seem to fit well in that group. You have all the evidence smacking you in the face every day yet you refuse to see it.
Tim Scott says
Mike is really demonstrating how deep his knowledge of the subject is here. I would never have guessed that a Scandinavian model would come from New Zealand.
Meanwhile, the idea that “cultural assimilation” is what makes people worth accepting as part of society is frankly disgusting. I relate to people as fellow humans, and if you think they need to “be like Mike” (ir, a disgusting elitist prig) to be accepted shame on you.