San Francisco Protest Brings Debate on Wages of Din

[DinoDoc]

SAN FRANCISCO, June 20 — The massive gray Hall of Justice , which stretches the length of a city block on Bryant Street, is the one-stop-shopping center for law enforcement in this city.

It houses the police department, the district attorney's office, a jail, a superior court and, on the second floor, the traffic court of Commissioner Paul Slavit.

Normally, Commissioner Slavit's courtroom would barely warrant mention. But now it is at the center of a political maelstrom involving issues no less grandiose than war and peace and crime and punishment.

In its simplest form, the fuss amounts to this: How hard should the authorities come down on the 3,000 or so people arrested in San Francisco during the antiwar demonstrations in March?

The answer is not as straightforward as the city's famously tolerant image might suggest.

Many of the arrests came on March 20, the day after the bombing in Iraq began. On that day, thousands of protesters flooded San Francisco's financial district in what would be the most disruptive antiwar action anywhere in the nation. The police at the time described the city as in a state of "absolute anarchy."

Three months later, some residents remain angry about the disruption and are demanding that the district attorney's office punish those people who were arrested in the protest. But others insist the staunchly Democratic city should stand up to the Bush administration and show solidarity with the antiwar movement by dropping all the charges.

"I know I can't make everybody happy," said District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who is being lobbied by both sides. "I long ago figured I can only do what I think is right."

Though most of those arrested were charged with misdemeanors, Mr. Hallinan has already reduced most of the charges to infractions, something he said was not uncommon in such situations. Over the past week or so, the first several hundred defendants have appeared before Commissioner Slavit.

A veteran of the 1960's protest movement, Mr. Hallinan said he wanted to give the demonstrators the benefit of the doubt while also avoiding the expense and hassle of pursuing so many prosecutions. Officials estimate that 2,300 cases remain in the legal system.

"My policy generally is that the arrest itself in these cases is sufficient punishment," he said. "Pay whatever the technical violation was, and call it even."

But it seems Mr. Hallinan miscalculated the mind-set of the current band of protesters. He also inadvertently touched a sensitive nerve in the city, where many people viewed the acts of civil disobedience as more rabble-rousing than free speech.

Far from professing gratitude for the reduced charges, most of the arrested demonstrators are choosing to fight the infractions, which carry a fine of about $100. The National Lawyers Guild, which is representing most of the protesters, has used every legal mechanism available to challenge the cases.

"It would be unethical to pay," said one of the protesters, Fran Peavey, 62, who was in court today. A writer from San Francisco, Ms. Peavey was arrested in her wheelchair for blocking Bush Street, her 18th protest-related arrest since 1965, she said.

"Yes, technically we broke the law, but if some of us started paying the fines, what would that say to the people who can't afford to? It would keep the poor people away."

The money question is carrying particular resonance for the city government, too, because of its budget crisis. As he contemplates what action to take, Mr. Hallinan said he was painfully aware that a decision to prosecute all 2,300 remaining cases, even in traffic court, would break the bank because most of those arrested would demand a trial.

If he is forced to try the cases, he said, he will have to ask the Board of Supervisors for more money.

Mr. Hallinan said he hoped to make a decision in the coming week. His staff is moving forward, pulling together hundreds of pages of charges to meet Commissioner Slavit's demand for new paperwork.

So far, Commissioner Slavit has dismissed 144 cases because of insufficient information in the police reports. He has threatened to throw out hundreds more because of a technical problem with the prosecutors' filings unless Mr. Hallinan files the charges anew by Monday.

The technical problem was brought to the court's attention in a motion by one of the lawyers, Bobbie Stein, who said that the handling of the cases had become so bogged down in finger pointing and city politics that there was no telling what might happen next.

"The police department is blaming the district attorney's office, and the district attorney's office was initially blaming the police department, and now Hallinan is taking it upon himself to personally blame me because he is embarrassed by this," Ms. Stein said. "All I did was stand up for these people's right to demonstrate."

At the same time, Mr. Hallinan is coming under increasing ridicule from the other side in the debate. His office has been inundated with angry letters and e-mail messages from residents, business owners and some elected officials who say he is going too easy on the demonstrators.

"Our association totally supports people's right to free speech, but I think what we saw with the antiwar protest far exceeded free speech," said Linda Mjellem, executive director of the Union Square Association, which represents about 250 businesses and property owners.

In a city where the district attorney's office has often been a political lightning rod, some of Mr. Hallinan's adversaries, including Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr., have also jumped to question his hold on the job.

Mr. Hallinan, who is seeking re-election this fall, has often been accused by his critics of being soft on crime and at loggerheads with the police department. He is still dealing with the fallout from his decision a few months ago to indict seven of the department's top leaders, including the chief, in a conspiracy case. The charges have since been dropped.

"I represent people who live in San Francisco, and they are fed up," Supervisor Tony Hall said. Mr. Hall is one of the most persistent critics of the protests and introduced a resolution urging Mr. Hallinan to prosecute those who were arrested. In a separate resolution, Mr. Hall also called on the city to seek reimbursement from the protests' organizers for additional expenses incurred by the city, estimated at $3.5 million for the month of March.

"We have to figure out a way to make those who were arrested pay or be held accountable for their actions," he said, "or this type of thing is going to go on and on and on."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/23/national/23PROT.html?ex=1056945600&en=83c92d5c008d5a30&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

So what do you think? Let them off or show the protesters that actions have consequences?

[Shi Huangdi]

Should've charged them the maximum possible charge, show them you can't just create anarchy as a way of making a political point

[DinoDoc]

Personally I liked the attitude "Yeah we broke the law. So what." displayed by most of the protesters. That amused the hell out of me.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Should've charged them the maximum possible charge, show them you can't just create anarchy as a way of making a political point

The CA economy can't afford that right now. In fact, if all of the protestors demand a trial, the state can't pay for it.

What are you going to do Shi? Raise taxes?

[DinoDoc]

Templar seems to be a case in point.

[Dis]

let em go

I'm not pissed at them anymore.

they were right. we shouldn't have went to war

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Templar seems to be a case in point.

Not my mess. Besides, the people complaining are mostly cranky commutors and buisnesses. Ooooh, poor baby! Did Starbucks lose some business because protestors exercised their rights.

Besides, don't have a war if you can't afford to deal with protestors.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Besides, don't have a war if you can't afford to deal with protestors.

Don't break the law if you can't afford to pay the price.

[Nubclear]

An otherwise nice troll, ruined by the fact that DD is letting too much emotion into it

Oh well

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
An otherwise nice troll,

It's not really a troll. I'm genuinely curious about the issues this raises.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


The CA economy can't afford that right now. In fact, if all of the protestors demand a trial, the state can't pay for it.

What are you going to do Shi? Raise taxes?

The state has some 300,000 inmates in the prisons and jails now. 2300 misdemeanor trials won't break the state's back in the slightest.

Reform the "court costs" language in California law to make those found guilty at trial who do not accept plea bargains for lesser offenses liable for the full cost of the prosecution.

As for the charges, screw reducing them - charge the maximum, promise the maximum sentence on conviction, and give them the choice of pay a fine on the plea bargain, or go to trial and pay a bigger fine and do jail time. There's also a bit of time that the state can delay before actually conducting trials, so you can pick a crop of say, 100, and docket them first, max them out if they go to trial and get convicted, and give the rest a chance to plea or take the pain.

Depending on the overall mix of charges, some percentage of those aren't worth prosecuting, so let a few off to wittle down the numbers of the rest, but screw the rest - plea or pay, boys.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar
Not my mess. Besides, the people complaining are mostly cranky commutors and buisnesses. Ooooh, poor baby! Did Starbucks lose some business because protestors exercised their rights.

Since when to protestors have a right to hinder people's movement or interfere in someone's business operation? Or commit vandalism, or all those other cute fun and games?

If they don't protest within their legal rights, then **** 'em.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Reform the "court costs" language in California law to make those found guilty at trial who do not accept plea bargains for lesser offenses liable for the full cost of the prosecution.

My guess is that this would violate due process as it would serve as a deterrant to innocent people asserting their innocence at trial.

As for the charges, screw reducing them - charge the maximum, promise the maximum sentence on conviction, and give them the choice of pay a fine on the plea bargain, or go to trial and pay a bigger fine and do jail time. There's also a bit of time that the state can delay before actually conducting trials, so you can pick a crop of say, 100, and docket them first, max them out if they go to trial and get convicted, and give the rest a chance to plea or take the pain.

Every last one of those 100 would move to sever. That's hundreds of motions to sort through, and many will have merits by which to do so. Besides, this will have to go to real court, with juries. And all it takes is one juror to recognize this as nonsense and vote for mistrial. Moreover, as this is the bay area, most will go free - after expensive criminal court resources are expended.

But hey, if you think I'm wrong, go run for DA and take you platform the the voters.

Depending on the overall mix of charges, some percentage of those aren't worth prosecuting, so let a few off to wittle down the numbers of the rest, but screw the rest - plea or pay, boys.

You know, for being so anti-communist you sure sound like Stalin.

[Ben Kenobi]

show the protesters that actions have consequences?

There are better ways to protest than to break things.
Or did I miss something in the class on civics:

'How to make a political statement?'

If they choose to break stuff, lock them up!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Since when to protestors have a right to hinder people's movement or interfere in someone's business operation? Or commit vandalism, or all those other cute fun and games?

If they don't protest within their legal rights, then **** 'em.

If they vandalized over a certain amount (no one is going to prosecute for $10 worth of damage), then you have a real charge. However, most of these "charges" result from overzealous police action

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


My guess is that this would violate due process as it would serve as a deterrant to innocent people asserting their innocence at trial.

And the risk of conviction at trial for a more serious charge than offered in a plea bargain is less of a "deterrent" than the prospect of paying the actual costs of the trial and prosecution? What do you think plea bargains are?

BTW, Liability for costs of trial is not "punishment"

Every last one of those 100 would move to sever. That's hundreds of motions to sort through, and many will have merits by which to do so. Besides, this will have to go to real court, with juries. And all it takes is one juror to recognize this as nonsense and vote for mistrial. Moreover, as this is the bay area, most will go free - after expensive criminal court resources are expended.

That's nice - and the courts already have the ability to sanction for frivolous motions. The judge would just deny any pretrial motions, and see if the defendant and their lawyer want to take it up on appeal, and get a quick dismissal.

This may be the bay area, home of frootloops like Boxer, but the judicial system there is unlikely to be much in favor of an organized effort to paralyze the judicial system so that a group of defendants can break the law with impunity.

But hey, if you think I'm wrong, go run for DA and take you platform the the voters.

I'd hate to take a 50-80% pay cut (don't know what SF DA salary is off the top of my head, but I do know SD county), but generally voters like DA's that don't take **** from criminals, not ones that coddle them.

You know, for being so anti-communist you sure sound like Stalin.

Why not the obligatory Hitler comparison?

If I was Stalin, these whiny protestors would be gone, and their families would be counting trees for ten years for Anti-Soviet Agitation, because the family members surely knew of the treasonous, counterrevolutionary activities of the bandits, and failed to turn them in anyway.

Gee, for being Mr. hard-core lefty, you sound awfully whiny at the prospect of being held accountable for your actions. Maybe they should protest within their legal rights next time?

[Velociryx]

Nahhh....nothing should happen to them at all. Let 'em go.

Let's just see what Templar's take is on it if they cost HIM some sales....

-=Vel=-
(it's easy to opt for lenience when you have nothing at stake...but hey....we don't really need the law anyway, do we?)

[Dis]

Mike, the protestors were right, the war was wrong. our country was hijacked.

now if the protestors were wrong, I could see them being fined.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dissident
Mike, the protestors were right,

What does that have to do with anything?

[Ben Kenobi]

now if the protestors were wrong, I could see them being fined.

Not the way it works. The protesters have legal limits for protest where they can express their ideas. These protesters blot the reputations of the other anti-war activists by breaking and smashing things.

BTW, why does it make sense to be against violence, yet have to express your message through violence?

[Dis]

being right should net you a get out of jail free card

[Dis]

there was no violence by the protestors!

only a few anarchists made some trouble.

yes the peaceniks should know better than to associate with anarchists. gives them a bad image.

[DinoDoc]

Stop trolling Diss.

[Dis]

okay

[Oerdin]

Send them all up on the maximium possible and demand that every last one of them post bond/bail while they litigate their cases. That way the state can grow fat off of the interest while these 3k cases slowly work there way through the system. The individuals would have to come up with thousands of dollars which wouldn't be returned to them until their case is complete; the only way to expidiate the case (and get their money back) would be to make a plea bargin which would help to lessen the court backlog.

If I ever got elected to office I could come up with a million little tricks like this.

[St Leo]

"It would be unethical to pay," said one of the protesters, Fran Peavey, 62, who was in court today. A writer from San Francisco, Ms. Peavey was arrested in her wheelchair for blocking Bush Street, her 18th protest-related arrest since 1965, she said.

Bush Street?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh....nothing should happen to them at all. Let 'em go.

Let's just see what Templar's take is on it if they cost HIM some sales....

-=Vel=-

I don't have sales - I serve the public interest.

And MtG,

(1) I don't due Hitler comparisons as a rule - that guy was in a league of his own.

(2) Paying for trial costs and due process. Courts tend to frown on things that incentivize (even theoretically) innocent people to plead guilty. Courts tolerate plea bargaining on strictly pragmatic grounds. Since most people are unable to afford to repay trial costs you're just talking about adding more proceedings if you are serious about collecting.

(3) A motion to sever would not be frivolous in this case. A peaceful protestor will argue that being tried with people who were violent or en masse (like a mob) are unduly prejudiced. And the motion will be granted - or the convictions will be throw out on appeal. These procedural tactics are pretty standard in cases like this.

(4) Who said anything about not holding people accountable? People who destroyed things or attacked others should be held responsible. Most of these arrests, however, are bullshit "disturbing the peace" type charges used in general to deter legitimate political speech. How do I know? My collegues in the National Lawyers Guild (who monitor protests for police abuse) SF chapter have it all on tape.

(5) What? You're not patriotic enough to suck up the pay cut and do your duty for the republic? Why do you hate America so much?

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Reform the "court costs" language in California law to make those found guilty at trial who do not accept plea bargains for lesser offenses liable for the full cost of the prosecution.

As Templar said, this would induce more plea bargains from the innocent. And it would undoubtedly violate the prohibition on ex post facto legislation since the reform would follow the infractions.

And the risk of conviction at trial for a more serious charge than offered in a plea bargain is less of a "deterrent" than the prospect of paying the actual costs of the trial and prosecution? What do you think plea bargains are?

I'd hope they are used rarely to get information from a guilty party about his accomplices. And even then, it wouldn't really be a plea bargain, but a reduction in their sentence after they've been convicted. When we start telling innocent people they might get life if they want a trial and only a few years if they plead guilty, we can induce admissions of guilt from the innocent.

BTW, Liability for costs of trial is not "punishment"

Tell that to an innocent person bankrupted by false charges and a trial regardless of the verdict.

[Berzerker]

(1) I don't due Hitler comparisons as a rule - that guy was in a league of his own.

Ahem...Stalin and Mao?

[David Floyd]

Not my mess. Besides, the people complaining are mostly cranky commutors and buisnesses. Ooooh, poor baby! Did Starbucks lose some business because protestors exercised their rights.

I'm about as Libertarian as they come, but you have no right to get in my way and prevent me from going about me business. If you and a hundred of your buddies are blocking traffic, then they are coercing thousands of people and violating their rights, not to mention blocking much of the access to many businesses.

Case in point. On the first day of the war, here at UT there was a massive protest that spilled into the streets and pretty much clogged up traffic on Guadalupe, a major road by campus - the road had to be closed. Now, I had stuff to do along that road, but these protestors made it practically impossible.

Protest all you want, but stay out of my way - stay on the damn sidewalk or the nice large UT campus.

And by the way, I was extremely anti-war, as anyone here can tell you.