Hochman reinstates the death penalty in a county that moved away from it.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman campaigned as a supposed moderate, claiming to have shed partisan labels to focus on “safety, not politics” even as he had recently run for AG as a Republican.
Lately, a growing chorus of critics—from civil rights advocates to former prosecutors—argue that his actions in office tell a different story: one of calculated regression, racial bias, and political opportunism dressed up as law and order.
In just a few months, Hochman has made headlines for reviving the death penalty in a county that had moved decisively away from it, defending the use of inflammatory language like “monster” and “animal” to describe people on trial, and denying crime victims access to legally guaranteed services because they disagree with his positions. The pattern is disturbing—and it’s not just policy-minded progressives raising alarm.
“In a moment when the nation is reckoning with the failures of the criminal legal system,” one legal reformer previously told the Davis Vanguard, “this move doubles down on one of its most broken and unjust elements.”
They were referring to Hochman’s abrupt decision to resume capital punishment prosecutions—a stark departure from his predecessor George Gascón’s reform-driven moratorium.
Gascón had famously said, “If I thought that the death penalty was going to stop people from committing brutal murders, I would seek it. But we know that it won’t.”
Indeed, California hasn’t carried out an execution since 2006. The state dismantled its death chamber in 2019. Governor Gavin Newsom has continued a moratorium on executions, citing high costs, racial inequities, and the disturbing rate of wrongful convictions.
Los Angeles voters themselves rejected the death penalty by a majority in 2012. Hochman’s policy shift is not a response to public safety needs—it is an ideological provocation.
“By reviving the death penalty, Hochman has reversed a longstanding moratorium,” LA Progressive reported in April. “In a press conference, he stated, ‘There are some crimes so heinous that only the ultimate penalty will do.’ But reform advocates called this ‘a cynical and regressive move’ that ignores decades of data on wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and deterrence.”
That regressive bent is not confined to capital punishment.
In April, Hochman’s office filed an unsolicited amicus brief with the California Supreme Court in a case it wasn’t even prosecuting. The brief urged the court to permit prosecutors to call defendants “animals” and “monsters”—rhetoric long associated with racially biased courtroom practices. The brief described such language as “an essential tool for prosecutors to convey the gravity of violent crimes.”
But critics weren’t convinced.
“This is precisely the kind of language that dehumanizes Black and brown defendants and taints juries,” said one former public defender. “It’s not justice—it’s a dog whistle.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defeated Hochman in the 2022 race for attorney general, had previously stated that animalistic language directed at people of color is “inflammatory, biased, and violates the law.” Hochman’s brief flies in the face of that guidance and ignores decades of research on implicit bias in the courtroom.
Yet perhaps most troubling is Hochman’s politicization of victim services. The Los Angeles Times reported that relatives of Kitty and Jose Menendez, whose sons Erik and Lyle are seeking resentencing, were denied access to victim services by Hochman’s office. Their offense? Disagreeing with the DA’s hardline stance on the brothers’ possible resentencing.
“In the Menendez resentencing hearing, the DA’s office declined to participate in the restorative justice process or provide support services to the surviving family,” the Times reported. “One advocate for crime victims told the Times, ‘This is a profound betrayal. Victim services should never be politicized or withheld as punishment.’”
One family member, Anamaria Baralt, said that her mother was hospitalized after Hochman’s office showed graphic crime scene photos in court without any warning. Hochman’s response? Not an apology—but a social media video doubling down and framing criticism as politically motivated.
It’s worth pausing here. Victim services are supposed to be about healing, not politics. The idea that they would be doled out based on whether families align with the DA’s sentencing philosophy is not just unethical—it’s cruel.
And inside his own office, Hochman’s heavy-handed approach appears to be generating fear. According to the LA Mag article, two deputy district attorneys have filed lawsuits alleging retaliation. One claims she was fired for pushing back on directives; the other alleges she was subjected to “freeway therapy”—a euphemism for being reassigned to distant courthouses as punishment for internal dissent.
“This is about optics, not justice,” one former deputy DA told LA Progressive. “We spent years rebuilding public trust by moving away from the death penalty. Hochman’s bringing back the worst of the old playbook—and he’s doing it with applause from the same groups that opposed any reform in the first place.”
To understand what’s really going on here, we have to cut through the tough-on-crime theatrics. Hochman’s playbook isn’t about safety—it’s about fear. It’s about reviving discredited tactics that appeal to a shrinking base of law-and-order voters and aligning himself with a national wave of right-wing prosecutors seeking to roll back the clock on justice reform.
But Hochman is governing in Los Angeles County—one of the most diverse, progressive counties in the nation, and one with a long memory of the justice system’s abuses. His decisions, from bringing back the death penalty to defending racialized courtroom rhetoric, are out of step with the direction Californians have chosen.
The death penalty is exorbitantly expensive and demonstrably ineffective. The use of dehumanizing language in court feeds systemic racism. Denying victim services to grieving families violates every principle of trauma-informed care.
Hochman says he wants to take politics out of prosecution. But every recent decision suggests the opposite: a DA making calculated political plays at the expense of fairness, dignity, and the rights of the most vulnerable.
“Gascón had famously said, “If I thought that the death penalty was going to stop people from committing brutal murders, I would seek it. But we know that it won’t.”
Famously? So famously that he got voted out of office by a landslide.