The Edge recently wrote a very interesting editorial on the current Berkshire District Attorney. It read: “Harrington had never been a prosecutor and had never run anything remotely as large as the DA’s office…” So, I was wondering: why do we keep electing the inexperienced and unskilled? What is it we are hoping for?
Were we hoping for “fresh ideas” as the editorial suggests? Perhaps, but where is it written that fresh ideas cannot be accompanied by experience and the ability to actually implement the ideas?
Fresh Ideas
Fresh ideas are nice — reform is lovely — but the ability to put fresh ideas and reforms into action seems just as important. The ability to do so without receiving a sharp rebuke from your colleagues in the legal community for unethical behavior would be good, too. Proving that you can do the job — not just successfully run for the job — is best of all.
Harrington decided that there was a sitting judge who was a “significant threat to public safety.” Really? On what basis did Harrington decide that? Her efforts to try to unseat the judge “deeply concerned” her colleagues, who called her behavior “indefensible and unethical.” The least you can expect from a DA is to act ethically and within the law.
Reformer
Harrington ran as: “a reformer who would rescue us from the excesses of the longtime former get-tough-on-crime DA David Capeless…” How did that work out?
Predictably, folks now complain Harrington is weak on crime. Even when a false allegation resulted in “extensive and expensive” investigation by police, Harrington did not press charges against the false accuser. Her actions caused an outcry against the lack of consequences, against not enforcing the law. Apparently, there is a fine, but necessary line between being a reformer and throwing out the law books.
Secondly, she made addressing domestic violence and sexual crimes priorities. In fairness, some of the already very low numbers decreased. However, the numbers over which Harrington had the most direct control – indictments – also went down.
“Despite Harrington’s emphasis on confronting sexual assault in the county, indictment numbers also trend down in that category – from a high of 16 in 2018 to five in 2020.” According to local news reports in 2020.
Apparently, Harrington agrees. In December 2020, she reinitiated her initiative to address domestic and sexual crimes. An acknowledgement that it wasn’t working in the first place or an acknowledgement that she likes podia and press conferences?
Regardless of her initiatives, in 2021, there was a marked drop in police reports of both domestic violence and sexual assault. A local newspaper speculated that “drives underreporting fears.” Perhaps neither the first or second initiative worked to reduce incidences of sexual and domestic abuse but only of the reporting. There is an alternative: if the police feel the DA will not indict, they may not see the point in investigating, and reporting. Either is bad because the women are suffering no less as their hopes for protection and justice evaporate.
Candidate and Worker
There is a difference between running for a job and doing the job. Some have an aptitude for the former but not the latter. General counsel to the DA Jeanne Kempthorne resigned because Harrington instructed her not to release certain materials to the newspapers. That was in violation to the Commonwealth’s Public Records Law, that is “Laws mandating the disclosure of public records have existed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since 1851,” that parallel the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Kempthorne explained the DA’s behavior as reflecting that Harrington’s office was “permeated by campaign culture.” Campaigning and governing are very different, and while many are concerned with reelection, the public has a right to expect the person to do the job, and at the very least, the public has the right to expect that the DA obey the law.
Another employee, Helen Moon, drew attention to the high turnover in the DA’s office as she walked out the door. Again, intimating a constant campaign culture, Moon also claimed Harrington went so far as to fire multiple employees because they supported her opponent, Paul Caccaviello, during the election.
Harrington responded by calling Kempthorne a “disgruntled ex-employee” and Moon dishonest. In that way, reinforcing that Harrington’s real initiative is reelection in 2022.
Harrington is, sadly, an embarrassment. She looks good as a candidate, but is inexperienced, incompetent, and self-serving as a worker. Once, when asked who inspired her to become a lawyer, she cited TV lawyers, “especially L.A. Law.” Cute, but we need the real thing not an “acting” DA, a working DA not a perpetual candidate.
Extremes in both political parties seem to love the untried, the inexperienced. Voting for reform or a new approach may be compelling, but a vote is too precious to waste. Couldn’t we use our votes carefully and wisely? Isn’t it possible to support an experienced person with a proven record willing to entertain new ideas when appropriate, and also, experienced enough to implement them?
