³ÉÈËXÕ¾

The director of the King County Public Defenders is pushing to stop a substantial number of felony prosecutions, arguing they don’t help stop crime and complaining that too many suspects are “BIPOC.” The public defender head wants the county to pay criminals not to commit crimes, instead.

In a letter to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (KCPAO) obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, Anita Khandelwal defended a Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) proposal that would dramatically cut the number of felony and misdemeanor cases a public defender can handle in a year. Prosecutors, however, say this would lead to thousands of criminal suspects not being charged and would put insurmountable costs on local budgets to hire new public defenders.

Khandelwal rejected the concerns. Instead, she said the best way to avoid hiring more public defenders is by “shifting to evidence-based ways to address harm in our community.” She argued that jailing criminals makes the community less safe.

More from Jason Rantz: Panic as Seattle restaurants may not survive massive minimum wage shift

Why would there be a crisis?

Prosecutors from across the state say if the WSBA proposal is adopted, their offices will not be able to charge dangerous criminal suspects, upending the entire criminal justice system.

In eastern and central Washington, there is a dearth of qualified attorneys. This has already forced judges to release dangerous suspects from jail because they were not given representation, a violation of their Sixth Amendment rights.

In King County, there isn’t an attorney shortage. But if the WSBA proposal is adopted, based on the number of attorneys and staff the KCPAO would have to hire, Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion estimates needing at least an additional $154 million per year to accommodate. That’s not feasible. But Khandelwal has an idea.

More from Jason Rantz:ÌýAfter crime crisis cost him his insurance, business owner vows to stop paying taxes in protest

Public Defender director says to stop felony property crime prosecutions, give cash to criminals

To avoid the cost associated with hiring new attorneys, Khandelwal suggested the KCPAO stop prosecuting felony property crime cases. She claims there are “evidence-based ways to address harm in our community.”

“Unlike public defense, prosecutors exercise discretion in determining which charges to pursue,” she wrote. “Prosecutors could exercise their discretion to prosecute charges that are likely to protect public safety. For instance, there is no evidence to suggest that arrest and prosecution for property crimes deters individuals from engaging in crime. There is a great deal of evidence that incarcerating individuals, even for short periods, destabilizes them and increases the likelihood of recidivism.”

Not only does Khandelwal suggest the KCPAO stop prosecuting certain crimes, she also suggests taxpayers hand over money to stop criminals from acting out to begin with.

“In contrast, programs involving cash transfers have been shown to decrease crime—particularly property crimes,” she wrote. “Given that most cases filed by the PAO involve non-violent crime, the County could simply choose to invest in universal basic income as a crime prevention strategy. In addition to being more effective, such an approach would also avoid the racial disproportionality of the criminal legal system.”

She goes on to complain that “BIPOC individuals (are) ensnared” in the criminal justice system. However, Khandelwal won’t say “criminal justice system,” instead using the progressive-preferred language, “criminal legal system.” Progressives won’t say “justice” in this context because they don’t believe justice is done.

Radical ideas from a radical public defender who wants to end prosecutions

Khandelwal’s letter underscores what the fight to lower public defender caseloads is really about. This is an intentional, ideologically driven campaign by the public defender director to end prosecutions.

In 2020, during the Black Lives Matters movement, activists vowed to implement reforms to fundamentally rebuild the criminal justice system. Some of the plans aimed to stop prosecuting non-violent misdemeanors and felonies.

Though it eventually failed, then-Seattle city councilmember Lisa Herbold pushed legislation to allow for a “poverty defense” for non-violent crimes committed by homeless suspects. And after Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison vowed to prosecute prolific offenders creating havoc in downtown Seattle in 2022, prosecution is a “tried-and-failed strategy.”

Khandelwal is also close allies with King County Council member Girmay Zahilay, a vocal supporter of the defund police movement, and Executive Dow Constantine, a prison abolitionist trying to close the county’s only youth detention center.

Progressive ideas with not much meaningful supportive research

By reducing the number of prosecutions, especially for property crimes, Khandelwal and her like-minded, public defender activists are essentially advocating for a system that de-emphasizes accountability in favor of social experiments.

Khandelwal argues that research shows giving cash to criminals will “decrease crime—particularly property crimes.” She’s being disingenuous about what the limited studies show.

While some studies suggest that cash transfers can have positive social outcomes, there is scant evidence to support the claim that they effectively reduce crime rates in the long term. In fact, other research indicates that such programs can lead to increased substance abuse and other unintended consequences, negating any potential benefits. This is not the time for untested social experiments with taxpayers’ money; it’s time to uphold the law and ensure justice for all.

What’s the research say?

Research reviewing , a universal basic income program in 2019, did see an 8% decrease in property crime. But it saw the decrease because they were giving drug addicts money that they were spending on drugs, leading to a 14% increase in substance-abuse-related crimes.

And while jailing criminals may disrupt their lives, the disruption they cause to their victims’ lives is more important to address. If we don’t prosecute, the victims of these crimes are left without justice, and perpetrators learn that they can act with impunity.

Khandelwal’s proposal not only threatens public safety but also undermines the trust that communities have in the legal system to protect them and uphold the law. Moreover, the assertion that such programs will avoid racial disproportionality is a shallow attempt to deflect from the fact that these policies could lead to more crimes disproportionately affecting the very communities they claim to protect.

Intentional plan to de-prosecute