For the sake of the city, Krasner must view impeachment threat as a teachable moment | Editorial

There are perhaps few topics in Philadelphia’s political circles more polarizing than the debate over the job performance of District Attorney Larry Krasner.

In many positive ways, Krasner’s first five years in office have been transformative. He has brought a newfound focus to conviction integrity, successfully advocated for additional investments in forensic tools for criminal investigators, and held police officers accountable for their misconduct.

Yet, in an eerie echo of Krasner’s own criticisms of his predecessors, his single-minded zeal for reform has sometimes led to alarming outcomes — the most obvious being situations in which the district attorney’s office has made choices that have left dangerous people on the street who should have been in custody.

Yaaseen Bivins, the adult who purchased ammunition for and allegedly organized last month’s shooting at Roxborough High School, had already been convicted of injuring a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child while drag racing.

» READ MORE: Pennsylvania lawmakers issue report criticizing Larry Krasner, fall short of calling for impeachment

Krasner’s office chose not to ask the judge in Bivins’ case to revoke bail, a decision that mystified legal observers. Krasner’s office also sought to overturn the murder conviction of Jahmir Harris, against the advice of the presiding judge. Harris is now facing another murder charge. After three SWAT officers were shot while serving a warrant, Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw lamented that her department “arrests the same suspects over and over again.”

Admonitions from the bench have also developed into a pattern for Krasner’s office. U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg said Krasner’s team misled the court while trying to vacate a man’s death sentence. State Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dougherty accused Krasner of trying to rewrite the law. Common Pleas Judge Barbara McDermott called the office’s prosecutors “incompetent.”

During a panel discussion hosted by the Philadelphia Real Estate Alliance in Center City earlier this month, Councilmember Isaiah Thomas said that during a summer spent attending hearings at a special court to consider gun cases, he saw inexperienced prosecutors routinely trounced by defense attorneys, perhaps a product of very high turnover.

While all of these incidents are frustrating and represent lapses of judgment, they don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense as some Republican lawmakers in Harrisburg have tried to suggest. It is welcome that a state legislative committee charged with identifying grounds to remove Krasner from office did not recommend the district attorney’s impeachment. (Though Republicans said Tuesday they were launching another investigation of Krasner.)

» READ MORE: End the Krasner impeachment sideshow | Editorial

The committee’s decision is a positive development — the effort in Harrisburg to impeach Krasner has been undemocratic from the start and would have effectively disenfranchised Philadelphia voters who elected him to a second term last year.

Yet, taken together, the impeachment effort, prosecutors’ recent issues in the courtroom, and other missteps must be viewed by Krasner as a teachable moment.

This board endorsed Krasner in the 2021 primary and general elections. But during Krasner’s first campaign in 2017, Rich Negrin and Beth Grossman won our endorsement. This board wondered then about Krasner’s lack of prosecutorial experience and willingness to collaborate and build consensus. After spending decades as a public defender and private civil rights defense attorney, would he be able to transition successfully to prosecuting wrongdoers? Recent events show that results are mixed.

And according to those who’ve worked closest with him, Krasner’s personal style — which can be brusque, strident, and condescending — is also not doing him any favors. In the words of State Sen. Sharif Street, Krasner “serves his cake without icing,” which effectively undermines his admirable commitment to criminal justice reform.

Krasner’s weaknesses are more glaring in a Philadelphia where murders are at a record and violent crime is a top concern for residents. Despite his assertions, the city is experiencing a crisis of lawlessness, crime, and violence.

Krasner and his allies say that his leadership is not responsible for the surge in gun violence, blaming the pandemic and budget cuts under the administration of former Gov. Tom Corbett in 2011. They cite research that suggests progressive prosecutors are being scapegoated for forces that are beyond their power to combat. There may be some truth to this complaint.

Still, the rise in gun crimes demands more than Krasner’s dismissive response. The criticism he’s received does not just come from extremist Republicans intent on reviving the Southern strategy or conjuring up the ghost of Frank Rizzo. Former employees, criminal justice reform advocates, and others who are supportive of Krasner’s vision have publicly questioned his legal decision-making, his professional demeanor, and his ability to work alongside others.

Philadelphia doesn’t need antidemocratic meddling from Harrisburg. But the city does need a district attorney with an even temperament who can balance justice reforms and criminal prosecutions.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify the criminal charges against Yaaseen Bivins.