By Linda Deos
Last week, the United States House of Representatives began impeachment hearings, focused on the President’s decision to withhold Congressionally approved military aide from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on his political opponent. This same week, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court indicated it might take away DACA, President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, threatening millions of young immigrants with potential deportation. These actions highlight the vast powers of the state, and the ways they can be wielded against innocent people.
We live in the City of Davis, often referred to with a bit of pride by longtime, liberal residents (and consternation by more conservative ones) as ‘The People’s Republic of Davis.’ But we are also the city that made national news a few years ago when protesting students were pepper sprayed by campus police. And now we are a city where a longtime Enterprise columnist casually referred to a group of Davis residents as “Trumpian” for writing an op-ed in the paper.
I am running for Supervisor because there are too many people in our community who feel like they lack a voice on our current Board. How is this disputable when a group of residents attempting to share their deepest concerns about a particular endorsement are met with personal attacks on their character rather than addressing their concerns? It is also paternalistic to suggest that a group 
of passionate criminal justice activists would allow anyone to pull their strings.
It is time to address the concerns about criminal justice in our community. Criminal justice reform is not a joke. For thirty years we have turned our backs on young boys and men, too often black, brown and/or poor, and imagined them to be so much less than their full amazing potential.
We ignored the science of brain development (the brain is not fully developed until the mid 20’s) to prosecute younger and younger children as adults and actively deployed punitive measures designed to punish rather than rehabilitate.
The scourge of cash bail has created a system where approximately 60% of people in our county jail are currently innocent, charged, but not convicted of any crime other than being too poor to afford to buy their way out of jail until an actual trial date. Too often plea deals are extracted from people truly innocent, but desperate to get home to family and jobs…if their jobs still await.
Yolo County can be a leader in ending cash bail and creating a much more compassionate system of justice focused on rehabilitation, including education, food and shelter, rather than strict punishment that goes against science and does nothing to make us safer.
Deos doubles down on Dunning’s challenge to own or repudiate the letter writers guilt by association hit piece.
Are 60% of the people incarcerated in Yolo County victims of cash bail? Now there is an honest issue.
When she talks about brain development does Deos think we should have treated Daniel Marsh differently? What does she think justice looks like in that local case and what does the supervisor position have to do with that sort of charging decision?
That was four D’s.
Or what do the national issues she speaks of have anything to do with County? Nothing. Her best strategy is never say anything again, ever.
Absolutely correct.
I’d say the Provenza hit-piece backfire is the end of this campaign before it ‘begun’.
Time will tell.
From a campaign analyst perspective, I’m not sure why people are so convinced that the hit piece backfired. She had prohibitively long odds going into the race and the need to carve out a specific constituency. I don’t know enough at this point to say whether that has worked or failed.
I agree David. It was an effective hit piece. How effective remains to be seen.
If however, Jim’s support from the DA is relevant, and Deos’ failure to renounce it confirms she believes it is, what about Deos’ work for CCPOA? Deos worked for the Union that brought you the draconian Three Strikes law that put pizza thieves in jail for life like under the Bourbon kings in a real life version of Les Miserables yet she claims to be a reformer. Go figure. What goes around comes around.
She has my vote . . . for District Attorney.
I was thinking the same thing. Deos for DA.
I didn’t mean to kill/rob/maim, Judge X, my brain wasn’t fully developed”
WTF, seriously?
Right back at you with the WTF Alan. Are we not to take mental capacity into account when deciding how best to protect our communities? Should we not accept and make modifications based on scientific advancements? Would you prefer we go back to the days when we executed people with demonstrably low IQs or other forms of cognitive impairment as we do those with full mental capacity? Do you think we should do away with any cognitive differentiation between children, juveniles and adults? Should everyone get treated “equally” even if they themselves are clearly not equal?
Tia – Deos says brain development is not complete until the mid twenties. That’s not really helpful. It doesn’t address the issue of criminal responsibility. Is she suggesting that people in their mid 20s should be treated as juveniles? Current knowledge of brain development isn’t at the point where determinations can be made as to when an individual’s brain is sufficiently developed such that they should be held criminally responsible.
I’m a little surprised by your comment. The legislature is already factoring in new research on brain development (see for instance AB 1308, SB 1391 among others) where they explicitly site brain development as rationale to reconsider sentencing and also prohibit adult court for people younger than 16.
The legislative policy is sound as applied to the younger end of the age spectrum. But the science isn’t so advanced that we can draw precise lines—particularly as applied to people in their twenties. I’m just unclear as to what Deos is suggesting.
Not sure I believe that “not fully developed” means “not responsible for criminal activity”. Of course it is a spectrum – and there is the rub.
I would be happy to see Linda Deos as either a Yolo Country Supervisor or as the DA. I do not know the details of why she chose the position she did, but believe that all candidates should choose the position from which they think they are best suited to make a positive contribution.
All the questions posted so far are valid and I would love to see them asked of the candidate herself directly.
Talk about burying the lede!
As I said when the original letter hit:
“Perhaps as this campaign gets closer to Election Day we will see more about the issues and fewer guilt by association hit pieces. I’m hopeful but I’m doubtful. This is the second time David has published a piece like this. Any bets on how many more by Election Day? My guess with four months to go is at least ten.”
Two down and eight to go.
Ron G.: you are making excellent progress on your prediction! Note also that Greenwald states in this article “From a campaign analyst perspective, I’m not sure why people are so convinced that the hit piece backfired.” Well, sure, he would think that. After all, he both started this attack in his original article and encouraged others to follow suit. At least he is admitting now that the letter was a “hit piece”. Progress?
I suggest you have too much time on your hands. (Meant light-heartedly)
A definition of hit piece: “an article, a documentary, etc. that deliberately tries to make somebody/something look bad by presenting information about them that appears to be true and accurate but actually is not.”
It is very interested that Greenwald admits the letter was a hit piece. As far as the question he leaves open: “From a campaign analyst perspective, I’m not sure why people are so convinced that the hit piece backfired,” the answer is simple and obvious–it backfired because it was a hit piece.
You’re reading way further into my comment then was intended. My only point was to question that it backfired.
I’m reading anything into anything. You directly called the letter a “hit piece.”
You’re assuming that because I used the term that was being used here, that I agree with its usage.
This is truly mystifying. I wonder who is advising her. She mentions Trump’s impeachment, the Pepper Spray cop, and the Supreme Court case regarding DACA students. Then gets to the heart of her concern – that people in the community didn’t like nor appreciate a group’s attack of Jim Provenza through an Op-Ed sent to local media and that has her upset.
She’s not running for Yolo County DA, but her focus is on that office. I think bail is set by the Court, not the Board of Supervisors. Juvenile arrests have drastically fallen.
It seems like Linda is saying that Jim Provenza is not liberal enough to work for Yolo County and the Eastern portion of Davis and she is, because of who her friends are.
You pretty much nailed it, Sharla… particularly as to a focus on a branch of Co services that the BOS has little control over…