close
close

Harris was once tough on crime. How does she feel about the police now?

Posted on by L. Dreeye
Harris was once tough on crime. How does she feel about the police now?

Which Harris is running for president? The 2009 Harris, who wrote that “serious and violent criminals need to be put behind bars,” or the 2019 Harris, who made it a priority to free them?

Jeffrey Seaman and Paul Robinson
| Authors of opinions

play

Which Kamala Harris is running for president? And what Democratic Party does she represent?

Democrats would have you think that Vice President Harris was once a tough, no-nonsense prosecutor. Republicans would have you believe that she was a progressive “pro-crime” who spoke out in favor of defunding the police.

The problem is that they are both right. Harris used to be a crime fighter and valued upholding the law. Harris then rebranded herself as a progressive prosecutor to appeal to the left wing of her party. Now she remains silent to avoid controversy. But the real problem is not that Harris has changed, but that the Democratic Party has changed.

The undeniable truths Harris spoke as San Francisco District Attorney cannot be repeated in today’s Democratic Party because they have become too controversial. The Democratic Party, like Harris, does not seem to know where it stands on crime. Democrats should read Harris’ 2009 book to return to common sense.

Harris wasn’t always a “progressive prosecutor”

The Conservative claim that Harris has always been a progressive radical on crime is simply not true. When she was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003, her views were moderate, combining a strong desire to prosecute criminals with support for social crime prevention measures.

Harris shared her views on criminal justice in her 2009 book, Fighting Crime Smart. Kamala Harris in 2009 called for “more cops on the streets to do more effective work” as one of her top priorities. She also criticized what she called the “partisan liberal argument… that the police are an unwanted occupying force in poor neighborhoods.”

She correctly noted that law-abiding residents of poor and minority neighborhoods are desperately wanted by the police. The prospect of cities adopting depolicing policies or creating police-free zones would have horrified Harris in 2009.

As Harris wrote: “Not sending police because it is assumed they are not needed or because it is somehow ‘unfair’ for the community to respond to its trespassers is contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy. … All communities want and have the right to law enforcement. Law enforcement must investigate and prosecute all crimes and make all streets safe.”

Although she has always opposed the death penalty, her record as San Francisco’s district attorney has been far from progressive. She cracked down on drug courts, which she believed were letting drug dealers off the hook. She wrote about the need to punish thieves regardless of their motives. And she fought for higher bail amounts to keep dangerous criminals behind bars and reduce gun violence.

In 2009, Harris had what she called “a desire to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law.”

Opinion: Harris lies about Trump and flops in politics. What does it really mean?

But then the Democratic Party changed. And Harris too.

Since the Black Lives Matter movement gained national prominence in 2014, progressives have increasingly opposed law enforcement. Suddenly the police became racist. Prison was racist. Law enforcement was racist. The left wing of the Democratic Party has forgotten the truths that Harris wrote in her book: police are not occupying forces, and while there is of course always room for police reform, communities with high crime rates need more police, not less.

Apparently Harris forgot her book too.

When she first ran for president in 2019, she played with progressives to get votes. She took on the label of a “progressive prosecutor” and attacked Joe Biden for being too tough on crime. She repeated the claim that Michael Brown was murdered (despite a Justice Department investigation to the contrary), criticized the hidden “systemic racism” in the justice system and advocated for a series of measures aimed at putting criminals back on the streets.

Ironically, despite her repositioning, her record has proven too conservative for progressives. Then-rep. Tulsi Gabbard famously criticized Harris on the Democratic debate stage for being too tough on crime by prosecuting drug offenders and fighting to keep criminals in prison.

As Democrats shifted toward crime, Harris did the same.

Following the unrest that erupted following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, progressives called for an end to policing. Democratic Party leaders retreated and stood by.

Harris helped raise funds to release bail for protesters and rioters wreaking havoc in Minneapolis and praised Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for cutting the police budget by $150 million. More than 20 cities have cut police budgets. Crime has increased.

Opinion: Harris’ CNN interview cements the shift in focus on fracking and the border. This is disappointing.

As the catastrophic consequences became clear, Democratic leaders tried to squash the “defund the police” slogan, but their messages on crime remained muddled and vague. The Democratic Party is caught between sensible moderates calling for law enforcement and radical progressives demanding more police cuts and prison closures. Today, Democrats continue to sidestep this issue to avoid an internal party civil war. Harris is no exception.

Which Harris is running for president? The 2009 Harris, who wrote that “serious and violent criminals need to be put behind bars,” or the 2019 Harris, who made it a priority to release serious criminals? Is it the 2009 Harris who called for more police on the streets, or the 2020 Harris who praised depolicing? We don’t know because she doesn’t talk. And she won’t say because the Democratic Party is split between those who want to jail the criminals and those who want to jail the cops.

For the good of their country and their party, Democrats need to rediscover common sense on crime. As Harris wrote in her 2009 book, “Achieving justice for victims and preventing future victimization is ultimately our mission.”

This shouldn’t be controversial, but it is in today’s Democratic Party. And it will remain controversial until Democrats loudly speak the truth, which Harris did in 2009 but won’t in 2024.

Jeffrey Seaman is a Levy Fellow and Paul Robinson is the Colin S. Diver Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. They are co-authors of the latest book, Confronting Failures of Justice: Getting Away with Murder and Rape.