Is there evil — morally reprehensible people — in the world?

It is a question San Joaquin County voters might want to ponder before they mark their ballots for the June 7 election for district attorney.

In one corner is Tori Verber Salazar.

She is 8-year the incumbent district attorney.

The other is the challenger Ron Freitas.

He’s been with the DA’s office for 34 years. Freitas  and has served as the assistant DA heading up homicide prosecutions to working in juvenile diversion.

Six years into her reign as district attorney Verber Salazar shifted gears.

She joined the restorative justice movement as defined by Los Angeles DA George Gascon and his Sam Francisco counterpart Chesa Boudin.

The definition of the term restorative justice seems straight forward. It is characterized as a system of criminal justice focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. Or more aptly in the perception and ultimately the execution.

Verber Salazar in neither the 2014 or 2018 election cycles gave any inkling that she’d man the ramparts for restorative justice.

She did make it clear she wanted to get better results from the criminal justice system.
Arguably her first effort — and most high profile — to find a way to break the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results was how the criminal justice system in San Joaquin County dealt with homeless crime referenced as being either “low level” or “quality of life.”

Her framing of the bulk of homeless crimes that are below serious felonies was spot on.

Verber Salazar four or so years ago started delivering the sobering truth. Not only was arresting and prosecuting homeless for  every infraction ineffective at changing illegal behavior but it is expensive.

Trespassing is an infraction. As a misdemeanor there is no jail time. The most they can be fined is $100. Most homeless can’t pay a $100 fine.

Sentencing the homeless to community work details as punishment is problematic at best. That’s because two of the leading factors as to why people end up being on the streets is mental illness and addiction problems.

But perhaps the biggest problem with dealing with the homeless by citing or arresting and then prosecuting them for quality of life crimes is the cost.

Citing a homeless person for trespassing and then prosecuting them costs $600 on average when police and district attorney costs are tabulated. If they are actually booked in jail, it adds another $850 onto the bill. And if the case goes to court, the costs soar past $2,000.

It doesn’t make sense. And it doesn’t change the behavior.

If you arrested the give or take 300 or so homeless people in  Manteca based on the last released point in time count every day for breaking laws that are primarily misdemeanors they’d be back on the street again the next day. Simply repeating the process over and over again ties up resources and accelerates the expenditure of tax dollars without solving the problem.

Verber Salazar  is a champion of the process of having law enforcement work in tandem with non-profit agencies such as Inner City Action on efforts to coax the homeless off the streets and into programs that can deal with addiction if needed as well as get them the services, mentoring, and assistance needed to get them integrated back into society.

That doesn’t mean those homeless that cause considerable damage to a community shouldn’t be prosecuted.

Verber Salazar’s office started working with police departments to target the homeless causing the most egregious problems.

The jury was still out on the homeless effort when Verber Salazar literally jumped ship.

She quit the California District Attorney Association in 2020. Her grievance was the organization that most of the 58 elected county district attorneys belonged to in California has been opposed to criminal justice reformer for years.

Verber Salazar then aligned herself with Gascon and Boudin’s reform ideas.

They run the gamut from not requiring bail on a wholesale basis for some crimes to no longer opposing the release of murderers up for parole and blocking prosecutors from seeking enhancement sentencing such as state law allows for documented gang members, using a gun in the commission of felony and such.

There are more than a few people — including law enforcement officer organizations and victim advocacy groups — that believe such a position has sent a message that the criminal element has heard loud and clear: There is little or no consequences for a growing number of crimes.

Such an approach may indeed break the cycle of locking up certain category of criminals six months to 10 years behind bars only to see them released to do the same thing again. But it also seems to have increased crime that such individuals commit given they aren’t sidelined while trying to post bail or serving time in jail after being convicted.

There is a serious question whether using a blanket approach to not using existing laws and prosecution enhancements to deal with crime is any better than throwing the book at everyone.

One might argue real justice is served on a case by case basis. Carte blanche reform directives that give get out of jail passes on a wholesale scale aren’t any better than locking everyone up although some would correctly note when career criminals are off the street they aren’t committing crimes.

Freitas argues what is needed is stepped up efforts that are proven to reduce the potential for young people to head into a life of crime. It starts with education, intervention and alternatives such as mentoring and recreation program as long before a person approaches adult hood or becomes a “repeat customer” of the criminal justice system. And he also believes assistant DAs should have the freedom to do their jobs prosecuting criminals instead of taking discretion away from them via a directive from whoever is the district attorney.

Verber Salazar sees what she is doing as reform.

Freitas views what Verber Salazar is doing as using the San Joaquin County as the testing grounds for what he sees an unproven social experiment.

There has never been such a clear ideological difference before San Joaquin County voters when it comes to electing a district attorney.

And unlike in 2014 and 2018, the voters can see the hands that both candidates bring to the table in how they will go about securing law and order and delivering justice in San Joaquin County.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com