Cuyahoga County Prosecutor O’Malley’s Backward Approach to Justice is Exacerbating Crime. Democrats Should Reject It and Endorse Matthew Ahn.
In the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party’s upcoming January 6 endorsement meeting, there will be one vote that is so consequential, where one candidate is so obviously superior, that, if it goes the wrong way, the only explanation could be that the party’s conservative old guard still holds undue sway within the party — a result that would degrade party unity that is already fraying nationwide. I expect CCDP to do the right thing — I was part of a successful effort to erode the old guard’s power in 2022 — but for the sake of both the health of Democratic Party and (especially) the improvement of the county’s criminal justice system, I feel compelled to lay out the Democratic case for Matthew Ahn in his challenge to incumbent Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley.
O’Malley’s “Tough on Crime” Approach Isn’t Actually Tough on Crime: It Makes It Worse
Prosecutor O’Malley’s re-election campaign is centered around two conflicting messages. There is no escaping this conflict without exposing that his prosecutorial philosophy is a failed one. The first message is that his (self-proclaimed) “tough on crime” approach and his experience as a prosecutor keeps Cuyahoga County safe. The second message is that the city is unsafe despite his seven-year years in office. So, which is it? Is the city safe or unsafe? Is it your fault or isn’t it? O’Malley wants it both ways.
Consider the following quote from O’Malley on the campaign trail, in response to criticism of extremely long prison sentences he secured for two youths tried as adults:
I will work with low-level offenders. I will try to get people on the right track. But I am not going to stand for people terrorizing Easton Avenue. I am not going to stand with them terrorizing the Larchmere neighborhood. I am not going to let it happen, period.
Usually when someone says “I am not going to let it happen, period,” what it means is that that thing will not happen under their watch, period. This is surely what O’Malley is hoping we hear when he says that. He’s appealing to our lizard brains here, hoping that his tough talk will make us think he can make us safe. However, the murders and carjackings committed by the two youths did happen, and under his watch. So we know when he says “I am not going to let it happen, period,” it does not mean “my approach will stop this from happening.” All it means is,“I won’t let it happen without imposing severe punishments.” There’s a fundamental problem with this logic: Severe punishments do not reduce crime or harm. In fact, a growing body of research shows that long prison sentences like the ones O’Malley pursues actually slightly exacerbate crime rates. O’Malley’s “tough on crime” approach therefore cannot be justified by appeals to public safety and crime prevention. The only justification for it is that it makes us “feel” safe or that it delivers vengeance. (Read Alec Karakatsanis’ excellent piece on why “tough on crime” is such a pernicious propaganda slogan.) If “vengeance” and “feeling safe” are stronger values among Democrats than actual safety, we are in trouble.
Our Democratic Counterparts in Other Cities Have Embraced a Better Approach
A better approach is available and has been embraced in liberal cities and counties across America: progressive prosecutors in cities including Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Baltimore, St. Louis, Seattle, and Philadelphia are paving a new path for justice based on equity, prevention, and restorative justice. The results are in: locations with progressive prosecutors have better crime results, including weathering the 2020 homicide spike better (2020 saw a 55% spike in cities with “tough-on-crime” prosecutors, 53% spike for “middle” prosecutors, and only a 43% spike in cities with progressive prosecutors). This is the approach embraced by O’Malley’s challenger Matthew Ahn, whose campaign was profiled in December by Matthew Richmond of Ideastream. As of August, the Ahn campaign had already raised over $180,000, removing any concerns about viability.
As important as mitigating crime is, it’s not even the primary reason for Democrats to support progressive criminal justice policies. The primary reasons are that, compared to the “tough on crime” approach of O’Malley, these policies are more humane, mitigate racial oppression, and embrace a holistic view of society that acknowledges the systemic forces that underlie crime. These are things that should resonate with anyone who holds the purported values of the Democratic Party. When I began my anti-mass-incarceration activism in earnest in 2014, these are the factors that motivated me. Back then, there was almost no data on whether a progressive approach to crime worked in America because there were almost no progressive prosecutors in America. Opponents of progressive reform tarred the movement with the claim that it would increase crime, and the movement was attacked for supposedly being callous to crime victims, even though there was no data either to support or contradict these claims. Now the data is in, and Democratic voters have begun to understand and embrace the reality that the progressive approach is not only better with respect to racial justice and humanitarianism, it’s also better with respect to crime and public safety. As more and more Democrats come around, progressive prosecutors have been consistently winning elections in Democratic regions across the country.
Still, some dinosaurs holding obsolete views on criminal justice have somehow managed to cling to power in Democratic regions of America, trotting out the same old obsolete arguments about respecting crime victims. O’Malley has been quoted criticizing Ahn for not having needed experience such as sitting down with victims and their families. This supposed concern for victims rings quite hollow when one understands that Ahn’s modern approach is known to create fewer victims in the first place. Meanwhile, O’Malley’s sympathy for victims’ wishes does not extend to those who don’t embrace his backward punitive ideology.
Accountability for O’Malley
One more thing. Michael O’Malley likes to talk about the importance of accountability. Accountability is something I believe in, too. I think it’s especially important for us to hold our public officials accountable, so before I conclude, I’d like to briefly mention a few things that should offend Democrats for which O’Malley has yet to face any accountability:
- Forcing innocent people back to trial after having served time despite having been exonerated.
- Refusing to send any cases to the Conviction Integrity Unit (which can exonerate victims of wrongful conviction) over the course of many years, causing board members to resign in protest. This, despite O’Malley having campaigned in 2016 on the need to expand the unit
- Firing two prosecutors to garner negative press coverage for political opponents. (Defamation and age and discrimination lawsuits were thrown out on technicalities such as “A statement is not a ‘false statement’ if, even though it is misleading and fails to disclose all relevant facts, the statement has some truth in it.”)
- Breaking a promise to re-open the Tamir Rice case. (This after winning the seat against incumbent Timothy McGinty, who had lost Black and progressive support for having done the same thing. O’Malley’s victory of McGinty is widely credited to backlash against McGinty’s handling of this case.)
- Leading the nation’s prosecutors in pursuing the death penalty, even when it goes against the protestations of victims’ families.
- Pursuing and even touting his commitment to bindovers, which send youth to the Cuyahoga County jail, which the US Marshals called “inhumane” and “one of the worst county jails in the country.”
- Becoming politically entangled with conservatives such as Tony George. In an open letter, several leading Democratic affiliate groups called on Democratic candidates to cut ties. The signatory groups were the Cleveland Stonewall Democrats, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Women’s Caucus, the Young Democrats of Cuyahoga County, the Grassroots Resistance, the Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats, and the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus (on whose steering committee I sit). The list of reasons they provide includes a case where O’Malley threatened a protester with an 8-year prison term, accusing her of “assault” for using a loud bullhorn outside one of Tony George’s restaurants. O’Malley has also had several fundraisers at George’s restaurants and has reported about $12,000 in donations from George since 2016.
By voting to endorse Ahn against O’Malley, CCDP can provide some measure of accountability for O’Malley’s anti-Democratic behavior.
For Sake of Justice and for Sake of the Party, CCDP Should Endorse Ahn
The choice between Michael O’Malley and Matthew Ahn should not be a difficult one for any person loyal to the values of the Democratic Party. It’s a choice between vengeance and effective public safety; between “following your gut” and following the science; between racial hierarchy and racial justice; and between capitulating to pressure from the backward-facing old guard and faithfully serving the best interest of the people. For the CCDP to fail to endorse Ahn would be to confirm the worst fears of progressive activists who still think the party is in the grips of the conservative old guard. This means that for CCDP Executive Committee voters, this endorsement vote is also a choice between alienating the party’s progressive wing on one of our key issues or embracing us and paving the way for a robust Democratic turnout in November. In an election year with an especially important Senate race on the Ohio ballot (not to mention Donald Trump), the stakes are especially high.
