The D.C. Council is expected to take the first of two votes Tuesday on a massive rewrite of its criminal code. If passed, the bill would eliminate most mandatory minimum sentences, allow for jury trials in almost all misdemeanor cases and reduce the maximum penalties for offenses such as burglaries, carjackings and robberies.
Not everyone is happy to see it on the verge of becoming law.
D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), Police Chief Robert J. Contee III, U.S. Attorney for the District Matthew M. Graves and other officials said that while they agree with the majority of the revisions, some proposals in the 450-page bill, dubbed the “Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022,” would have negative consequences — further burdening a court system that is already stretched thin, and reducing law enforcement’s ability to bring serious punishments for serious crimes.
“Does this enhance public safety, and does it make communities safer?” Contee asked at a recent news conference. “The things that we disagree on, I think that communities should be informed about what those things are. Council members should really understand what we’re signing off on here.”
Council members supportive of the bill — including Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) and public safety committee chair Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) — say the overhaul is a necessary one, fixing antiquated language in the law and imposing change that will make the justice system more equitable and less reliant on incarceration.
“It’s outdated, it’s contradictory, it’s a mess, and after a 16-year-long process, we now have a revised criminal code in front of us,” Allen said.
The first vote by the full council on the bill is scheduled to take place Tuesday, and a second vote would have to take place at least two weeks after. Should the bill pass and then be signed by the mayor, much of the reform would take place over a three-year period to give the courts, police and other groups time to ensure officials are up to date on the changes.
The bill received unanimous support in the five-member judiciary and public safety committee.
Some of the changes are uncontroversial. The overhaul would modify existing statutes that use outdated language, such as references to “common scolds,” which are individuals who disturb the peace by arguing with their neighbors.
The overhaul also seeks to add some clarity. For example, the current criminal code does not define “simple assault,” leaving judges to do so. The overhaul would define simple assault as recklessly causing bodily injury to another person, with the words “recklessly” and “bodily injury” also getting specific definitions in the code.
At a recent breakfast with the council and mayor, Allen said the long process included moments of compromise and collaboration between local agencies and advocates who frequently have differing views on criminal justice policy.
Allen said in an interview that the council worked closely with police to tweak language in the bill having to do with public nuisances, such as public urination and carrying open containers of alcohol. The revised criminal code would make such conduct a crime, but without jail time.
Mendelson addressed some of the criticisms of the bill at a news conference Monday, saying some claims about it were “wild misunderstandings.”
“I’m comfortable that there is no one out there committing a crime today who could do the same thing tomorrow and not be arrested for it,” Mendelson said.
City Administrator Kevin Donahue said that although with “95 percent of the bill, there’s consensus for all parties,” there are still areas that he would prefer be changed before it is passed.
Bowser said at a news conference that some of the items should be addressed with separate legislation, rather than as a part of a broad overhaul of city code. The new code language includes the expansion of the Second Look Act, which allows people serving long prison sentences to ask a court to grant them a reduced sentence.
“We think that new policy proposals can and should be dealt with separately from the criminal code rewrite,” Bowser said.
Criminal justice reform advocates have long argued that the system is too punitive — and that those who have been rehabilitated after long sentences should get an opportunity to rejoin society. Naïké Savain, the director of policy at DC Justice Lab, praised the proposed rewrite, saying it would advance fairness and racial equity in the District.
“That’s important if we are actually committed to rehabilitation for every member of our community,” Savain said. “This bill is an exceptional improvement over what we have and will be a step in right direction for our community.”
Other advocates, though, note that releasing people convicted of felonies can be traumatizing to crime victims.
“It’s upending the apple cart for these victims,” said Denise Krepp, an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Ward 6. “That was a line for me and they just crossed it.”
Graves said in a statement sent to members of the council that he was concerned over the proposed reform lowering the statutory maximum penalties for offenses such as burglaries, carjackings and robberies.
“We are concerned that the significant reduction in certain maximum penalties for serious violent crimes prevents courts from imposing penalties that appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history,” Graves said.
Allen has noted previously that while the statutory maximum penalties are being lowered, the sentences called for in the bill “more closely match actual sentences handed down every day in court.”
Graves and Bowser also said they were troubled by a provision that would allow people charged with misdemeanor offenses to demand jury trials. Though Graves said he does not object in principle, he asserted the proposal “cannot be executed in this jurisdiction in a way that does not greatly increase the time between when a crime is charged and when a trial occurs.”
“The main hurdle we face is that the District lacks control over: the size of the Court, the funding for the court, and how quickly judges get placed on the Court,” Graves said. “Tripling or quadrupling the number of jury trials our already strapped Court must schedule will only negatively impact our Court.”
Doug Buchanan, a spokesperson for the D.C. courts, said in a statement that the Superior Court anticipates more than 20 judicial vacancies by the end of 2023 and that the court is “stretched to the limit.” He added that “without swift and immediate action from Federal lawmakers to address the ongoing judicial vacancy crisis within the DC Courts, our ability to sustain an even greater workload than we are currently enduring is not feasible nor is it realistic.”
Allen said the reform on expansion of jury trials for misdemeanors would be phased in through 2030.
This, Allen said, would ensure that judicial vacancies could be filled. Allen also said he had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to discuss the Senate moving forward on judicial nominations.
“We’ve got to make sure we have a full complement of judges, but it’s also important that people have a right to a jury,” Allen said. “D.C. is an extreme outlier. It’s us and only nine other states where people don’t even have a right to a jury.”
Michael Brice-Saddler, Julie Zauzmer Weil and Emily Davies contributed to this report.
correction
An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the revised criminal code would provide penalties for public urination or carrying open containers of alcohol if doing so caused property damage or involved publicly exposing genitalia. The criminal code makes both offenses a crime without those conditions.
