Kamala Harris' Crime Policies: A Legacy of Failure
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 2 hours ago
**Exposed: Kamala Harris' Dubious "Tough on Crime" Legacy**
Kamala Harris, often touted as a champion of public safety, faces significant scrutiny regarding her past as the District Attorney of San Francisco.
Her claims of being "tough on crime" are contradicted by a record that paints a different picture.
When Harris held the DA position from 2004 to 2010, violent crime in San Francisco surged by 19% in her first year alone.
This alarming trend continued under her tenure, leading many to question the effectiveness of her policies.
Critics highlight her lenient approach to plea bargains that allowed violent criminals back onto the streets far too quickly, often resulting in devastating consequences.
Notably, her office was criticized in 2006 for dealing leniently with offenders like Dwayne Reed, who received an inexplicably light sentence after being involved in a murder.
Just days after his testimony, Reed was released and went on to commit another murder, illustrating the serious flaws in Harris's judicial philosophy.
Further compounding these issues, a former prosecutor from her office, Jim Hammer, documented cases where Harris's policies led to repeat offenders escaping justice, leading to a tragic rise in crimes that could have been prevented.
Harris's so-called success in raising conviction rates comes into question when contextualized against California’s broader crime statistics.
Her conviction rates, while slightly better than her predecessor's, still fall short of the state averages, casting doubt on her effectiveness.
Homicides, in particular, increased yearly during her time as DA, a stark contrast to the declining trends seen up until her administration.
The troubling history is further mirrored in her current role as Vice President, where she has shown a laissez-faire attitude towards criminal justice at the national level, destabilizing law and order while opening borders to unchecked immigration.
Harris’s recent proposals to reduce gun violence and crime read as empty rhetoric when weighed against her established history of freeing criminals who should be off the streets.
The American people deserve a leader with a firm commitment to public safety, rather than a figure who has historically favored leniency for violent offenders.
As the 2024 election looms, voters must assess whether her past aligns with the future they envision for America, or if these inconsistencies reveal a dangerous agenda that jeopardizes community safety.
Sources:
rumble.com
therightscoop.com
thefederalist.com
Kamala Harris, often touted as a champion of public safety, faces significant scrutiny regarding her past as the District Attorney of San Francisco.
Her claims of being "tough on crime" are contradicted by a record that paints a different picture.
When Harris held the DA position from 2004 to 2010, violent crime in San Francisco surged by 19% in her first year alone.
This alarming trend continued under her tenure, leading many to question the effectiveness of her policies.
Critics highlight her lenient approach to plea bargains that allowed violent criminals back onto the streets far too quickly, often resulting in devastating consequences.
Notably, her office was criticized in 2006 for dealing leniently with offenders like Dwayne Reed, who received an inexplicably light sentence after being involved in a murder.
Just days after his testimony, Reed was released and went on to commit another murder, illustrating the serious flaws in Harris's judicial philosophy.
Further compounding these issues, a former prosecutor from her office, Jim Hammer, documented cases where Harris's policies led to repeat offenders escaping justice, leading to a tragic rise in crimes that could have been prevented.
Harris's so-called success in raising conviction rates comes into question when contextualized against California’s broader crime statistics.
Her conviction rates, while slightly better than her predecessor's, still fall short of the state averages, casting doubt on her effectiveness.
Homicides, in particular, increased yearly during her time as DA, a stark contrast to the declining trends seen up until her administration.
The troubling history is further mirrored in her current role as Vice President, where she has shown a laissez-faire attitude towards criminal justice at the national level, destabilizing law and order while opening borders to unchecked immigration.
Harris’s recent proposals to reduce gun violence and crime read as empty rhetoric when weighed against her established history of freeing criminals who should be off the streets.
The American people deserve a leader with a firm commitment to public safety, rather than a figure who has historically favored leniency for violent offenders.
As the 2024 election looms, voters must assess whether her past aligns with the future they envision for America, or if these inconsistencies reveal a dangerous agenda that jeopardizes community safety.
Sources:
rumble.com
therightscoop.com
thefederalist.com
Latest News