CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA – Among George Soros-backed district attorneys, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton could be regarded as “small fry.”
She isn’t as quotable or outrageous as other DAs who have benefited from Soros’ attempts to eradicate law and order in America, nor did she receive as much money from Soros. This does not mean she is any less dangerous or effective at undermining law enforcement in her jurisdiction.
Becton’s career as a DA began when the previous DA resigned as part of a plea bargain to avoid prison for misappropriation of $66,000 in campaign funds.
With the DA’s position vacant, the county conducted an open recruitment for a replacement, to be vetted by the Board of Supervisors. After winnowing the field of candidates down to five, all finalists were interviewed.
Diana Becton, who was backed by George Soros in 2018, has charged a couple with a "hate crime" for painting over a "Black Lives Matter" mural. https://t.co/eFlwmHPdDI
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) July 8, 2020
Becton, a retired Superior Court judge, was appointed to the job as Interim District Attorney for Contra Costa County, CA.
Golden Gate University, Becton’s little-known alma mater (it is ranked so low that it is given a range instead of a number – #148 to #194 out of 194 law schools), congratulated her on her appointment as DA.
GGU Law School Dean, Anthony Niedwiecki, said:
“Becton is the first woman, first African-American, and first person of color to serve as Contra Costa County District Attorney since the office was established in 1850. She was sworn in as the County’s 25th District Attorney.”
Never mind that by mentioning the year 1850 in this string of firsts, the implication is that the rarity of her achievement is something like 1 out of 170 years, rather than 1 out 25 district attorneys. It is a subtle but misleading attempt to magnify her accomplishments.
The implication is that she must be fantastically talented or she couldn’t have overcome the barriers that prevented all other black women from serving as district attorney. Keep in mind that these accolades were given after she was appointed to the job, not elected.
“She is one of the new progressive DAs in the country who seeks to use this position to make meaningful changes in racial justice, social justice, and prison reform. As an outstanding role model, she perfectly exemplifies the kind of forward-thinking lawyers that GGU Law produces.”
This is not a neutral educational institution. GGU clearly sees themselves as architects of Socialist experimentation in American government.
And then George Soros enters the picture.
Soros DA Diana Becton Requires Officers Consider Whether a Looter "Needed" Stolen Goods Before Charging https://t.co/6nln62BGDu
— Jesse Lee Peterson (@JLPtalk) August 28, 2020
Soros contributed a minimum of $49,647 to Becton’s campaign, for an office that is rarely contested.
Retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell said:
“It’s unusual to have a contested district attorney’s race to begin with. Usually one person retains the job for term after term, and the seat opens up only when that person retires or dies.”
Soros, however, sees these races as a cheap way to buy a lot of influence. Rather than putting millions of dollars into congressional or senate races to influence laws, he spends thousands of dollars to influence which laws are enforced, and how.
Three of the issues on Soros’ agenda are: reduced incarceration, decriminalization of marijuana, and elimination of the “three strikes” laws.
In a correspondence of views that cannot rationally be described as coincidental, Becton’s platform emphasized bail reform and elimination of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Her goals also include reduced incarceration, decriminalization of marijuana, and elimination of “three strikes” laws.
Just like Soros.
Becton’s support wasn’t due to her extensive experience as a prosecutor. She had none. Prior to being appointed as interim District Attorney, she was appointed as a Superior Court Judge by Governor Pete Wilson in 1995.
Before that, she spent her entire legal career in private practice. Not many people are appointed to powerful positions in government without an election, but it happened twice in a row for Becton. The likelihood is that her progressive politics, rather than her credentials or ability as a lawyer, are responsible for her success.
In 2018, with help from Soros and other progressive backers, Becton won a four-year term to the office of Contra Costa District Attorney. After her victory, she issued a statement that she would represent constituents “proudly, with integrity, and with a strong commitment to fairness and justice for all.”
EXCLUSIVE: Soros DA Diana Becton's New Policy Protects Criminals Who Assault Law Enforcement Officers https://t.co/qiuGTLvAzS
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) September 3, 2020
Her vision of fairness, though, favors criminals over victims.
According to Becton:
“The reasons people thought that I would be good for that position had to do not only with my administrative experience, but also people thought that I would bring criminal justice reform to Contra Costa County.
“The laws in our criminal justice system really shifted a lot so that judges really didn’t have that much discretion in what happens in the courtroom. What I came to see is that it’s really the prosecutor in that courtroom who had all of the discretion and the power.”
Once she had “the power” that came with being DA, Becton wasted no time in her efforts to weaken criminal statutes in California. She founded the Prosecutors Alliance of California (PAC) with fellow Soros-backed DAs Chesa Boudin, George Gascón, and Tori Verber.
The goal of the PAC is to support progressive legislation and challenge traditional views of law and order in America. They distinguish themselves from “tough on crime” DAs by saying they want “criminal justice reform.”
In other words, they aren’t tough on crime.
One of the issues taken up by the PAC is Prop. 47, a bill that reduced penalties for most drug-possession and theft offenses. Prosecutors say the bill single-handedly increased crime but PAC member Gascón disagrees.
He said that studies have shown the measure did not trigger an increase in overall crime as opponents predicted it would:
“If you hear police unions and prosecutors, (they’ll say) single-handedly Prop. 47 has caused an increase in crime, which is a lie.”
The San Francisco Chronicle linked to an article to support their claim that Prop. 47 did not lead to a rise in “overall crime.”
However, it also states that:
“[Prop. 47] appears to be linked to a rise in auto break-ins and thefts…Thefts from motor vehicles averaged 16,000 to 17,000 a month statewide before Prop. 47 passed in November 2014 and increased to 19,000 to 20,000 a month in the next two years, the Public Policy Institute of California reported Tuesday, citing state data.
“We estimate that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate of about 135 per 100,000 residents, an increase of close to 9 percent compared to the 2014 rate.”
The article praised Prop. 47 for getting some things right. The good news, according to them, was that fewer people were arrested and of those who were, fewer were sent to prison. Not only that, but recidivism was down.
The problem with this view, as stated in the study itself, is that Prop. 47 itself forced changes to police policies that had a direct effect on the data. Because police could no longer charge certain crimes unless they directly witnessed them in progress, many reported crimes are not leading to arrests.
The radical left has embedded itself in our justice system.
— Ray Dietrich 🇺🇸 (@raydietrichs) August 29, 2020
Prior to Prop. 47, complaints of certain types of thefts such as auto break-ins, would have been investigated. Some of those would have likely led to arrests and prison time for the perpetrators. Now, we have no idea how many crimes were committed because complaints aren’t counted unless an arrest was made.
A competing study from UC Irvine disputed the findings of the Policy Institute. Michele Hainslee, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys pointed out:
“After Prop. 47 passed, crime went up, savings on incarceration were minimal and the recidivism rate remains high.”
Hainslee correctly pointed out that the Public Policy Institute’s report on Prop. 47 should not have included data on murders and rapes to determine the effect of Prop. 47 on “overall crime” because the law did not apply to those crimes. Larceny, which is covered by Prop. 47, rose in California at the same time it declined in the rest of the country.
Californians with an interest in law and order saw the devastating effects of Prop. 47. To fix the problems it caused, Prop. 20 was proposed to roll back Prop. 47 and Prop. 57. Together, the two bills were perceived by the law enforcement community as inciting criminal conduct.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
DA Becton sought to defeat Prop. 20 by extolling the virtues of Prop. 47 and 57:
“The two ballot items helped to reduce the number of people incarcerated in state prisons, increase funding for victim services, and begin to ameliorate the impact of a tough-on-crime policy mentality that targeted Black and Latinx people.”
It is fair to admit that what Becton claims is true. The problem is with what she doesn’t say: By reducing prison populations, the two bills increased the number of criminals on the streets and the number of crimes committed.
They may have made more money available to victim services, but they also created more victims to serve, effectively nullifying any economic benefit to the city, not to mention the cost to victims.
The only “benefit” to the “black and latinx” communities is that criminals belonging to those racial groups were set free to commit more crimes among those communities.
Recently, Becton swore, along with California attorney general Xavier Becerra, San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin, and 60 other elected prosecutors, not to enforce the law on restrictions to abortions in the unlikely event that California law would change.
By swearing to disregard the law, she assumes authority to substitute her personal judgment for that of the state legislature.
The context for the abortion statement was the hearings held for the open Supreme Court justice seat formerly held by justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is ironic that the Supreme Court could be the motivation for over 60 prosecutors to swear they would not uphold a law that doesn’t align with their political goals. One would think that the signers of the abortion statement felt that they were a law unto themselves.
The abortion statement was based on a hypothetical and unlikely situation. Would Becton follow through on such a pledge? There are other examples where she appears to have selectively enforced the law.
For instance, she did not charge anyone with vandalism in the context of graffiti inspired by the Marxist group Black Lives Matter (BLM), but when a couple had the temerity to “deface” a BLM “street mural,” they were arrested and charged with hate crimes and vandalism.
Becton comes across as mild-mannered, compared to other Soros-backed DAs, but she supports the violent Marxist group Black Lives Matter (BLM).
“We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention.”
One method Becton has employed to support BLM is to stop prosecuting what she describes as “low level” drug offenses. This will help the black community (capitalized as “Black” in all of her statements) because law enforcement “disproportionately traps people of color.”
In 2018, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office arrested 864 people for drug possession, according to federal statistics. One-fifth of them — 172 people — were black, even though black people comprise one-tenth of the county’s population.
This, she implies, is unfair. From her statistically-challenged point of view, the number of black suspects arrested should be proportionate to the number of non-black suspects arrested, regardless who is committing the crimes.
That would be like freeing as many male prisoners as needed to equalize the male to female prisoner ratio. Conversely, more women could be arrested. Or even better, we could simply arrest the people who commit crimes.
Of those suspects who are arrested, Becton directed that suspects be “diverted” rather than prosecuted, to social welfare and assistance programs. The diversion directive also applies to minor crimes such as disturbing the peace, petty theft, disorderly conduct, misdemeanor trespassing and possession of burglar tools.
In other words, it applies to a type of minor offender that commits large numbers of offenses and sometimes graduates to major crimes, such as the murder committed by Seattle’s Travis Berge.
One can almost hear Jerry Seinfeld saying, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
When it comes to looting, Soros-backed DAs move in lockstep – they don’t overtly support it but they do their best to defend it. Becton defends looters by demanding that charging officers check each looting offense against a checklist of what amounts to waivers for the crime.
This allows criminals to commit so many offenses so quickly that a business can be completely devastated in a matter of minutes. For those reasons, looting increases the penalties for what would otherwise be charged.
Becton’s waivers seek to remove the looting intensifier by redefining the crime as theft.
Investigators must now consider “was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneously to the declared state of emergency?” and “was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?”
The idea behind both questions is that if the theft did not occur because of the state of emergency, or cannot be proven to be provoked by it, then the suspect is not charged with looting.
Similarly, if an analysis of the suspect’s motives cannot prove that the theft was committed for “personal gain,” it may be assumed to have been committed for “personal need” and cannot be charged as “looting.”
Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Spokesperson Scott Alonso said:
“These guidelines are consistent with how we evaluate criminal cases. The policy does not say we won’t file these types of cases.”
Regardless, the guidelines can be used as justification to decline prosecution and the questions are irrelevant to determine whether a crime took place during a state of emergency and thus qualify as “looting.”
Considering Becton’s stated goal of reducing prison populations by limiting factors that lead to imprisonment, her list of looting guidelines is more consistent with a goal of declining to prosecute looting charges than it is with, as Alonso implies, historical norms for the office.
Steve Aiello, president of the Antioch Police Officers Association agrees:
“[It] is disingenuous to claim that the guidelines won’t interfere with prosecuting cases of looting. It shows the District Attorney’s Office is picking and choosing the types of crimes it will prosecute versus just following the laws on the books.”
Antioch police union president and Mayor Sean Wright questioned whether the financial “need” of looters outweighed the financial need of business owners”
“Where do you exactly draw the line on need because these are people’s businesses that are being impacted and livelihoods that are being destroyed.”
An ironic move by the Contra Costa DA’s office under Becton requires a review of bodycam footage before charges can be filed for resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. Officer testimony, even multiple officers, is no longer good enough to sustain a charge.
This is in stark contrast to the standard used against police for alleged brutality. In the case of Michael Brown, George Floyd, Daniel Prude, Jacob Blake and others, the officers involved were convicted by media-hungry elected officials before investigations had even begun.
Too bad Becton doesn’t use the same standard for public attacks on law enforcement.
Is she a hypocrite? Yes she is.
At the same time, she is completely true to her goal and the goals of other Soros-aligned prosecutors – to weaken law enforcement so that criminals may thrive.
Becton won’t be up for re-election until 2022 but other DAs are campaigning hard right now for the 2020 elections. Pay attention to the district attorney and judgeship races in your area and make sure to vote for the candidate you want, rather than allowing Soros and others like him to plant more dangerous DAs like Becton in your district.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!