Opinion: Pima County deserves a prosecutor who puts public safety first

Pima County citizens should take a hard look at the record and philosophy of County Attorney Laura Conover, because there is a fundamental difference between believing in second chances and making leniency the defining principle of a prosecutor's office.

Laura Conover has made restorative justice, diversion programs, and the elimination of capital punishment central to her tenure as Pima County Attorney. Those policies may sound compassionate and enlightened in the abstract - but citizens have every right to ask a much more basic question:

At what point does compassion for offenders come at the expense of public safety?

That question becomes particularly important when the defendants involved are repeat offenders, violent offenders, or people whose criminal histories demonstrate that previous interventions have failed.

The recent Daniel Michael JR, Jack Upchurch, David French, and Dahseir Jefferson cases deserve scrutiny in that context. When serious charges are reduced, dangerous allegations dropped, and violent offenders remain in the community, it’s the public citizens who must accept the risk.

Restorative justice can have a legitimate role in the criminal justice system. Diversion can also be appropriate for certain offenders, particularly when the offense is relatively minor, and the defendant poses little risk to the public.

But when diversion, reduced charges, plea agreements, or probation are extended to people with significant criminal histories, the question becomes whether the system is actually changing behavior or simply reducing consequences. A prosecutor's job is not merely to reduce the number of people incarcerated. It is to enforce the law, advocate for victims, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public.

Conover has touted statistics she claims show reductions in crime under her administration. Those numbers deserve examination. Crime statistics do not exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by reporting patterns, charging decisions, case screening, dismissals, plea agreements, diversion, and which offenses, geographic areas, and time periods are included in a comparison. A lower crime statistic does not automatically establish that a particular prosecutorial philosophy caused the reduction. Nor does it answer the question of whether individual victims received justice or whether repeat offenders were held appropriately accountable.

If Conover believes her policies make Pima County safer, publish the data. How many serious charges are reduced or dismissed? How often are dangerous offense allegations dropped? How many violent offenders receive probation? What are the recidivism rates? Is our elected prosecutor willing to acknowledge the risks her decisions impose on innocent people?

Perhaps just as troubling is the manner in which Conover has responded to criticism. Public officials wielding the power of the criminal justice system should expect tough questions. They should expect victims' families, law enforcement officers, defense attorneys, journalists, political opponents and ordinary citizens to disagree with them. That is democracy.

Yet when legitimate questions arise about her prosecutorial decisions and criminal justice policies, they’re met with Conover’s contempt, dismissiveness, or defensiveness. Citizens should take notice, because this office belongs to them, the people of Pima County, and the County Attorney is not above scrutiny.

Do citizens want a County Attorney whose first instinct is diversion and restorative justice? Do they believe repeat and violent offenders are receiving appropriate consequences? Are plea deals and dismissals serving the interests of victims and public safety? Are probation decisions appropriately accounting for prior violent convictions? And do the statistics presented to the public genuinely measure safer communities, or are they merely reflecting changes in how cases are prosecuted (if at all)?

Citizens should demand greater accountability from Conover’s prosecutorial approach and methods, carefully examining how cases are investigated, charged, prosecuted, and resolved. They should examine the plea agreements, dismissed/reduced charges, diversion decisions, probation outcomes, and treatment of repeat offenders. They should demand the underlying data behind claims of declining crime. And they should pay very close attention to how the County Attorney responds when those decisions are challenged.

Pima County deserves a prosecutor who puts victims and public safety first. Instead, its citizens are being treated as collateral damage in Laura Conover’s ideological experiment. When protecting offenders takes priority over protecting victims, accountability has failed. Pima County deserves better.