Mike Lyles, Esquire
Democrat
In your opinion is there a difference between being “tough on crime” and being “smart on crime”? Please explain.
Yes. Tough on Crime by itself is a robotic approach to law enforcement that seeks to hold every accused accountable in the exact same way without due regard for the situation and seeks the harshest punishment. I think that citizens want a law enforcement official that understands that breaking laws have an impact on society and its people. However, tough on crime stances or prosecutions without thought, justice, compassion and discretion are cookie cutter approaches that often fail to reflect the nuances of a particular case as might by addressed by a prosecutor and often leads to unfairness and exposes bias in the criminal justice system. Smart on crime is a new term that is used to express the notion that we can hold people accountable and yet still have respect for the rule of law. I think it is used mostly to suggest that punishment need not be unnecessarily punitive and looks to non-incarceration alternatives to criminal accountability because our history with mass incarceration and notions like three strikes you’re out have not produced the societal safety benefits once believed. I believe that the properly informed State’s Attorney can protect the public’s safety interests and promote respect for the law without forsaking compassion and thoughtful models of accountability applied fairly and without undue harshness on any particular class of people.
Should minor offenses be decriminalized, resulting in fines instead of jail time?
This is a very broad question that requires one to know which “minor” offenses are being referenced. For instance, it is a misdemeanor to purchase sex or to engage in prostituting an adult, however Human Trafficking is a crime that has many dire consequences for society and harms its victims in ways we are just beginning to understand and do something about. So without knowing which minor offenses are being referred to, I would say that I am generally in favor of expanding non-incarceration alternatives to criminal accountability, it may include fines, or other types of accountability methods, like enrolling in a restorative justice program, restitution, mediation, community service, etc. Over incarceration has harmed many poor communities and not made them safer nor has it produced the deterrence once hoped for.
Do you favor using pretrial risk assessment? Will you recommend pretrial supervision?
I am in favor of pre-trial risk assessment, I would only recommend pre-trial supervision for those first time offenders accused of crimes of violence or where there is a vulnerable victim or possible contact between accused and a victim might result in more violence. I mostly believe that for most non-violent first time offenses, defendants should be released on their own personal recognizance with proper notification of time, date and place of trial and with appropriate warnings about failure to appear.
Would you work to expand criminal diversions in which willing victims and offenders are offered mediation?
Yes, I favor expanding criminal diversion programs in which mediation is offered for non-violent crimes. The current list of diversion programs in the Prince George’s County State’s Attorney’s office includes such mediation. I think it could be expanded, with Assistant State’s Attorneys directed to move more cases into the mediation program as appropriate. I did it in the Human Relations Commission here in Prince George’s County as Executive Director, and we dropped case loads by 100% in the first year and increased case closures by 200% year over year at the same time.
Would you support reentry programs to improve employment opportunities for inmates returning from state prison sentences?
I support reentry programs focusing on improving employment opportunities for inmates returning from state prison. At the Human Relations Commission I helped draft and get passed the “Ban the Box legislation in our County, as a way of giving returning citizens a fighting chance at a good job. The law prohibits medium to large employers from inquiring about a candidates criminal history until after the first interview. My agency also investigates and enforces the law on behalf of complaining citizens. We studied the issue and found from other jurisdictions that many times criminal history questions were a tool of some employers to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity. Holding employers accountable by requiring more credible reasons to deny a candidate than just merely negative criminal history has proven to be a great tool in helping returning citizens or those with some distant negative criminal history, get and retain jobs.
Would you support mental health screening and treatment of pretrial detainees?
I support mental health screening and treatment of pre-trial detainees because recent studies indicate that about 25% of the individuals serving time in county jails or awaiting trial in county jails have some mental health needs that often go untreated. I think that mental health screening and treatment would go a long way in helping to reduce certain repeat criminal activity that results from untreated mental health issues. Additionally, treatment could be a part of a well thought out diversion program for individual defendants, as untreated stress, trauma, depression and other disorders may lead to more contact with law enforcement entities who are often less equipped to resolve situations involving citizens undergoing a mental health crisis.
