DC Attorney General's opinion on the appointment of the US Attorney for DC and DC's rising crime rate

In 2012, I wrote a blog entry about the then new master plan for the Seattle Police Department and what a step forward that was.  I still remember commenter charlie's reaction, that the master plan said very little about addressing crime or reducing the crime rate. 

==========

DC is an unusual jurisdiction for criminal prosecution.  Because it is still the federal district, not an independent state, the US Department of Justice is responsible for the trying of adult criminal cases which in normal circumstances would be tried by the local jurisdiction.

In short, in DC, the US Attorney handles both federal and local crimes.  The DC Attorney General handles the prosecution of juvenile crimes and civil matters more generally.

I favored the creation of an elected Attorney General position in DC as a route to developing the competence of the local office and as a justification for moving towards the devolution of local criminal prosecution to the local government.

-- "Executive Power vs. the will of the people and the DC Attorney General," 2015
-- "US Attorney General Barr's screwing up of the US Attorney's Office in DC as a justification for spinning off local prosecutions," 2020

But I haven't really seen that argument put forth, and something I never considered has happened--that the AG, at least under Karl Racine, seems to have used his office to help forward the election of DC Councilmembers--four of the thirteen worked for the AG before running for office.

The AG has an op-ed in the Washington Post, "President Biden’s choice for U.S. attorney should reflect D.C. values," about how President Biden should take into account the preference of DC citizens as expressed on various issues, when making the appointment for the position.

He mentions issues like hate crimes, and how federal prosecution of gun crimes ups the sentence, and this is counter to what "the people want."

But like how charlie skewered me about my love of the Seattle Police master plan in terms of its failures to address how it would reduce crime, all I could think about when reading this is that violent crime in DC is up, the use of guns in crime is up, shootings are up, and that the murder rate--while down significantly from the peak in the 1990s, when 479  people were murdered in 1991 ("D.C. Touts Lowest Homicide Rate in Nearly 50 Years," NBC4)--and then dropped steadily to a heralded low of 88 in 2012,  has more than doubled eight years later.  Last year's total was 198 murders ("Homicides in D.C. hit 16-year high; shootings also have spiked," Post).

How come AG Karl Racine didn't mention DC's rising crime rate as an issue of concern to local citizens, and its relevance to the choice of a US Attorney for the District of Columbia?