Crime Went Up Under Kamala’s Reign but Don’t Worry She Raised Conviction Rates

J.J. Gouin / shutterstock.com
J.J. Gouin / shutterstock.com

Kamala Harris loves to brag about her so-called “tough-on-crime” days as a prosecutor, but let’s not kid ourselves—if she’s tough on anything, it’s common sense. If she’s elected president, don’t be surprised if her disastrous policies from her time as San Francisco’s district attorney come back to haunt us all. Spoiler alert: under her watch, violent crime skyrocketed, murderers walked free, and innocent people paid the price.

From 2004 to 2010, Harris held the position of San Francisco DA, a period marked by crime running wild in the streets. In her very first year, the city saw a 19% increase in violent crime, a trend that held steady as her policies continued to embolden criminals. And no, I’m not exaggerating. Even seasoned law enforcement officials were baffled by her leniency. But of course, Harris paints a rosy picture of her record—because who needs facts when you’ve got a campaign to run?

Former prosecutor Jim Hammer, who worked in the San Francisco DA’s office just before Harris took over, had some choice words about her policies. He described case after case where Harris gave violent criminals sweetheart plea deals, which ultimately cost more lives. One particularly egregious example? Dwayne Reed, a man with six prior felony convictions, was involved in a murder but only got five years behind bars for testifying against his accomplice. Harris’s office then allowed him to walk free after just two days. Eight months later, Reed was back in the news—this time for committing another murder.

And it wasn’t just Reed. Take the case of Scott McAlpin, a domestic violence offender who should’ve been locked away for good. Instead, Harris’s office cut him a deal, and he was out of prison in under a year. Shortly after his release, McAlpin murdered the woman he had repeatedly terrorized. These are just a couple of the many victims who paid the price for Harris’s incompetence.

Then there’s James McKinnon, another murderer who, thanks to Harris’s soft touch, managed to avoid a life sentence. After killing a man and moving into the victim’s apartment like some sort of twisted squatter, McKinnon was only charged with voluntary manslaughter and served six years. Guess what? He was paroled after just two.

Harris wants us to believe she’s all about justice, but her record proves otherwise. Her approach was to let dangerous criminals walk free while disregarding public safety and the rights of victims. Just imagine what that would look like on a national scale if she were ever to land in the Oval Office.

But wait, it gets worse. In 2006, Harris proposed a plan that would’ve made even the most die-hard criminals jump for joy. She wanted to give drug dealers a free pass on their first and second offenses and only charge them if they were caught a third time. Yes, you read that right. San Francisco’s police chief at the time, Heather Fong, was so horrified by the idea that she sent a letter to Harris warning that it would lead to more crime, especially with drug dealers flocking to San Francisco to take advantage of the lax enforcement.

What happened to being “tough on crime,” Kamala? Seems like it was more of a PR stunt than a genuine commitment to protecting the public. Harris’s plan was so bad that even the San Francisco police refused to take part in it. Today, Fong works for the Biden-Harris administration in the Department of Homeland Security—ironic, isn’t it?

Let’s talk about Harris’s so-called “success” with conviction rates. Sure, she touts her ability to raise conviction rates for violent offenders. But let’s not give her too much credit. Compared to her predecessor, Terence Hallinan, who had a pathetic 49% conviction rate, Harris did manage to bump it up to 55%. However, that’s still far below the statewide average of 83% at the time. So while she likes to boast about her “accomplishments,” the numbers don’t exactly scream “justice for all.”

Harris can brag about her background as a prosecutor all she wants, but a closer look reveals a shocking lack of commitment to protecting the public. And don’t think for a second that her current role as vice president has changed her views. One look at the southern border will reveal her true stance on crime.