AS D.A., HALLINAN CHANGED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THE BETTER

In my 21 years of being active in the civic life of San Francisco, I
have never seen such an extreme case of fear mongering about crime as
The Chronicle's recent assault on District Attorney Terence Hallinan.
The Chronicle's analysis of the data is seriously flawed; the
implication is that San Francisco's conviction rate of violent felons
is less than half of what it should be. We are asked to believe that
thousands of violent criminals are let loose on the streets of our
city each year who, in other counties and under previous district
attorneys, would be behind bars.

The Chronicle's portrayal is not consistent with what I know of the
office. My window is the Juvenile Court, where the district attorney's
office is headed by a seasoned prosecutor, Walter Aldridge, who has
been in his position for 14 years. Says Aldridge, ``Believe me, we
know the difference between a lightweight kid and a dangerous kid, and
truly violent kids are prosecuted -- but others are often given more
effective and appropriate options.''

According to Aldridge, his office has been given more skilled staff
support under Hallinan than it has ever had and morale has never been
higher. Attorneys now have the latitude to work with community
agencies and use a drug court, developed by Hallinan, instead of the
formal justice system.

Interestingly, the drug court is far more intensive than previous
diversion programs and more rigorous than what happens with
traditional prosecution -- with mandatory drug testing, curfew checks,
truancy officers, counseling and guaranteed enrollment in college upon
successful completion of the program. Paul Henderson, the newest
district attorney in the Juvenile Court is an African American from
Bayview-Hunters Point and one of the many people of color who have
been brought into the office. Henderson is so committed to seeing kids
turn around their lives that he has been known to actually transport
his clients as far as the University of Mississippi to ensure that the
drug program can deliver on its promises. The district attorney's
approach to juvenile offenders not only rebuilds lives, but it makes
San Francisco a safer place by fostering permanent changes in young
people. District attorneys should be applauded, rather than assailed,
for finding ways to avoid the revolving door of our corrections system.

There has been one statistic at the core of The Chronicle's screaming
headlines, editorial, cartoon, columnist tirades, ``news'' coverage
and defensive retorts to other media: San Francisco's felony
conviction rate is 27 percent compared to the statewide average of 61
percent. I frequently compare risk indicators among counties in order
to measure how San Francisco children are doing in relation to others.
As I began to look closely at the numbers The Chronicle was
presenting, along with the numbers from the Department of Justice, I
found:

- -- Violent crime in San Francisco has gone down 21 percent over the
past 10 years, more than most counties and more than the statewide
drop of 14 percent. Clearly, we haven't had a huge influx of violent
criminals on our streets.

- -- San Francisco's felony conviction rate based on population is the
same or higher than counties with comparable violent crime rates, such
as Alameda and Los Angeles.

- -- Hallinan's conviction rate is similar to that of his predecessor,
with the average felony convictions per arrest actually higher than
his predecessor's last two years in office.

- -- Seventy-five percent of the felony cases filed by the district
attorney end with a courtroom success (either conviction or completed
diversion program).

So, why did The Chronicle find discrepancies in the conviction
percentages if Hallinan's effectiveness is not the issue? The most
likely explanation is that San Francisco has very different police
practices from other counties, sending many more felony cases to the
district attorney than other counties:

- -- The SFPD has double the felony arrest rate of counties with
comparable crime rates, such as Alameda, Los Angeles, Fresno, and San
Diego.

- -- The SFPD releases or reduces charges on fewer cases than any other
county. (The LAPD releases or reduces to misdemeanors 33 percent of
its felony arrests: the SFPD releases or reduces only 0.5 percent.)

- -- The SFPD seeks felony complaints more frequently than police in any
other county, including counties with comparable crime rates. (In San
Francisco, 39 percent of total arrests are categorized as felonies; in
Alameda, it is 25 percent and it is 20 percent in Los Angeles.) The
numbers in no way reflect what The Chronicle purports. Since its
conclusions, premised on the conviction rate being a percentage of
arrests and arrests in San Francisco, are so skewed, The Chronicle's
case is built on a house of cards. See for yourself. The Department of
Justice Web site is at caag.state.ca.us/cjsc.

The excessively punitive criminal justice policies in this state and
the massive buildup of the prison system are destroying lives that
could become productive and are robbing our children of resources that
should be spent on education, health care and child care. Since 1980,
California's prison population has gone from 23,000 to 160,000; for
the first time in our history, we are spending as much on prisons as
we spend on higher education. While our state has gained the
distinction of incarcerating more of our population than any other
country in the world, California has gone from ranking as one of the
top states in per pupil expenditures on K-12 education to ranking 43rd.

If we are going to stop this trend, we need meaningful alternatives
and a press that helps the public gain perspective on the scope of
problems and insight about long-term solutions. The Chronicle's
crusade to convince us all that San Francisco is an increasingly
dangerous place because of its soft-on-crime prosecutors undermines
our efforts to promote effective criminal justice policies and
sensible budget priorities.

HOW THE CHRONICLE GOT THE NUMBERS

On September 2, The Chronicle published a special report that found
that San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan has the lowest
conviction rate among California prosecutors. The Chronicle's numbers
came directly from the California Department of Justice. The two
methodologies The Chronicle used were the same as the DOJ uses.

The first DOJ method calculates the conviction rate as the percentage
of convictions per felony arrests.

The second DOJ method takes into account cases dismissed by law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors before complaints are filed. This
method calculates the conviction rate as the percentage of convictions
per complaints filed.

In some counties, including San Francisco and Sacramento, law
enforcement agencies dismiss only a few felony arrests, whereas in
others, including Alameda and Contra Costa, law enforcement agencies
dismiss hundreds of cases.

Both DOJ methods show Hallinan has the lowest conviction rate in the
state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Brodkin Is Executive Director Of A Child Advocacy
Organization In San Francisco.