Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table

Some highlights from the article

Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.

A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.

Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”

    • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Wait, what’s the complaint? I read a lot of comments complaining about her prosecutorial record, so I was like what’s her record exactly? Then I shared the article. Are…are you complaining about how the internet works?

      Edit: I also think she’s a reasonable prosecutor given she had to work during the “tough on crime” era. I can’t judge for what she did when everyone was doing the same wrong thing. In fact, I think she tried to be better? The question is what would she do differently now.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ha. It’s not you, it’s just the instant spin-up of the “why not to vote for the Democrat” machine is gonna make people touchy about even a perfectly reasonable article that starts to cast about through the years for reasons to evaluate Harris poorly, with its implied pretense that we need to evaluate her for any length of time before deciding that voting for her is better than the alternative who is very literally worse than letting rabid dogs loose in a children’s hospital.

        • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          Honestly, if the choice was trump or let rabid dogs loose in one children’s hospital, I’d feel bad for the kids when I voted, but that’s still a better option. Now, if it’s All children’s hospitals, I may have to think a bit.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The complaint is that there is no time to do anything different. She’s not a bad candidate just because she’s not checking all your boxes. She’s a great candidate for this situation.

        If you want to complain about your lack of options, time travel back about 60 years. Ther rest of us are living here right now.

        • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I agree, I think the article puts her work in context. For whatever reason people think this article is against her. It’s just telling things how it is. I think she’s a reasonable presidential nominee, and is definitely far better than the alternative

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        Complaining how the campaign media works yes. Biden literally just announced he was withdrawing hours ago.

        We’re going to get into the nasty ugly shit and contention about Harris and whoever gets the VP nod shortly. Can we wait JUST A LITTLE WHILE PLEASE. Is that too much to ask?

        Is a reluctance to go from a handful of months-long scraps about Biden immediately to articles about Harris-as-prosecutor some kind of outlier? These articles are going to flood in, the corporate news just did two huge rails of coke and will be up all night cranking out all the innuendo, inference, and suppositions anyone has any right to expect and it isn’t going to stop for months.

        Let’s wait a minute. A brief pause.