Master Virgo wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 4:40 pm
Certainly not, for a Louis C.K. apologiser.£
As this NY Times opinion showcases, she's not a good choice to represent progressives, low income and other people who are victims of the American criminal justice system for a number of reasons (the opinion focuses mainly on criminal justice issues):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opin ... stice.html
She has consistently fought or stayed silent on most progressive prison reform ideas, she fought to uphold wrongful convictions secured through evidence tampering, false testimonies, etc..
As California's AG, she appealed in 2014 when a federal Orange County judge declared the death penalty unconstitutional. Not a good look imo.
She has opposed Proposition 47 in 2014, which would have made some low-level felonies into misdemeanours and refused to support statewide standards that would regulate body-worn cameras worn by cops, which earned her hefty criticism from the ACLU, San Francisco's public defender and Democratic state senators.
She has also fought to keep wrongly convicted people imprisoned (ex. the case of George Cage mentioned in the article), despite the existence of clear evidence showing those people's innocence.
This Guardian article goes into further details of her past actions as AG and prosecutor:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... prosecutor
Her practices as prosecutor against sex workers are really shameful. She went after websites that sex workers needed to advertise and she was a vocal opponent of the decriminalisation of prostitution.
In terms of police brutality, she opposed legislation that would have required her as AG to investigate fatal shootings by police as well and generally she showed total inaction in cases of policy brutality that were brought to her attention.
The Democratic Party's base has been to her left for decades and she will have a hard time distancing herself from the injustices she's responsible for.