“’Tough on crime’ may be Kamala Harris’ biggest campaign lie.”

Kamala Devi Harris often points to her time as a prosecutor to prove she is a tough-on-crime advocate for public safety. And because she is so proud of her achievements, if she is elected president, she will try to implement the same measures she tried before. But the truth is that her disastrous policies as San Francisco district attorney increased crime, released murderers and cost lives.

From 2004 to 2010, Harris monitored crime in San Francisco as a prosecutor. In her first year, San Francisco saw a 19 percent increase in violent crime rates, an upward trend that continued throughout much of her administration. Their implemented and proposed policies drew criticism from longtime law enforcement experts.

Former San Francisco District Attorney Jim Hammer, who worked in the district attorney’s office shortly before Harris was sworn in, wrote a scathing editorial in SFGate in 2006 criticizing her lenient negotiations with violent offenders and describing case after case where violent offenders quickly released from prison and offending again, harming even more victims.

Hammer mentioned Dwayne Reed, who took a plea deal based on his six felony convictions and served only five years for his role in the murder of a man in exchange for his testimony against the other killer. Under Harris’ direction, Reed was released just two days after his testimony. Just eight months later, Hammer wrote, Reed murdered another man in another county and was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.

Scott McAlpin, a longtime domestic violence perpetrator, received a deal that got him out of prison in less than a year. A few months after his release, he murdered Anastasia Melnitchenko, “the woman he had repeatedly terrorized, and ultimately dumped her body in the trunk of a car,” Hammer said.

In a 2006 interview with San Francisco/Unscripted, Hammer spoke about murderer James McKinnon, who killed a man, placed the body in the man’s bathtub and moved into the victim’s apartment. According to Hammer, who knew the case through his work in the district attorney’s office, McKinnon spent the victim’s money and had a second victim, an older man, from whom he took money.

“When I was in the DA’s office, we were asking for life in prison,” Hammer said in the interview. Then Harris took over the case when she was sworn in. McKinnon was offered a plea deal, the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and six years in prison (including time she served while awaiting trial) in exchange for a guilty plea to the murder, and she dropped the charge against the elder fall victim. Two years later he was released on parole.

“Tough on crime” is just another campaign lie. Harris was actually weak on crime and sought to free criminals without regard for public safety, victims’ rights, or meaningful justice.

Freeing drug dealers

Hammer spoke out in 2006 to warn the public about a radical plan Harris was pursuing: releasing San Francisco drug dealers on their first and second offenses and only charging them criminally if they were arrested for drug trafficking a third time.

The plan “sends a message to criminals that even if they are arrested by San Francisco police, they have a good chance of being released if the prosecutor refuses to file charges,” Hammer wrote. “Many murders are directly linked to turf wars and drug trafficking. While some murders may indeed be difficult to prosecute, aggressively pursuing the most dangerous drug dealers is an effective way to nip violence in the bud.”

San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong sent Harris a letter on October 24, 2005, raising alarm about the plan.

“This proposal requires us to detain and release observed drug trafficking suspects rather than arrest them,” Fong wrote. “If the same suspect is arrested for drug sales a third time, your office would charge all three charges.” Fong noted that she attended a meeting where the plan was discussed and the benefits presented as triple the amount of evidence for law enforcement, higher bail and lower costs of housing inmates were described since the drug dealers would be on the streets and not in prison.

Fong’s letter said it was important to consider the negative impacts of such a plan, including the fact that drug sellers would be released back onto the streets shortly after their arrest and would not suffer any immediate negative consequences for their illegal actions.

Fong warned of an increase in “commuter crime,” criminals who come to San Francisco from out of town to ply their trade where they know they can sell drugs without consequences. This would lead to more drug sales and competing drug dealers fighting for turf, which would lead to even more violent crime.

Fong said her department declined to participate in the program.

Today, Fong works at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the Biden-Harris Administration under DHS Secretary Mayorkas as Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement and Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement.

Conviction rates

Harris may sound like a clueless idiot when she speaks, but behind her supposed “tough on crime” policies lies a dangerous, pro-crime agenda.

For example, the presidential agenda on its website promises to “make our communities safer from gun violence and crime.” As proof that she can do it, her agenda reads: “During her time as district attorney, she has increased conviction rates for violent offenders – including gang members, gun criminals and domestic abusers.” Of course, that doesn’t mean violent offenders can’t get out of jail quickly were released from prison and re-offended.

Increased conviction rates – that sounds good. And sure, compared to previous District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who had a 49 percent conviction rate for murder, rape, robbery and assault, Harris increased conviction rates and won 55 percent of the murder trials her office brought. However, according to a report by San Francisco Weekly, their rate was still comparatively low, considering that the rate across California averaged 83 percent at the time.

But conviction rates don’t tell the whole story, Hammer said. The conviction rate is based on the cases the prosecutor prosecutes and how many cases she wins.

“If you do simple cases, you get more [convictions]. When you take on difficult cases, the conviction rate gets worse,” Hammer said, noting that in the seven years before Harris took office, the number of murders fell each year. And in the three years (at the time of Hammer’s interview) that Harris has been in office, murders have increased every year, he said. A conviction rate also does not provide any information about what punishment the perpetrator received. It could be life in prison without parole or six years for murder. “There is a connection between not prosecuting difficult cases, trying serious murder cases… and increasing crime.”

Harris likes to talk about her background as a prosecutor, but upon closer inspection it becomes clear that she is far from prepared to protect the people who elected her. That hasn’t changed. Today, Harris’ disregard for crime and its impact on innocent people is evident in her ignoring her responsibility to protect the U.S. border from foreign invaders illegally entering our country. This is a crime. She doesn’t care.

We don’t need to imagine how dangerous it will be for law-abiding citizens to live in a country where more criminals are released and the consequences are mitigated. We just have to look at their poor track record in San Francisco.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.