CANDIDATE ANALYSIS
Mack = D-, Savit = A, Slay = C+
Mack: Mack’s approach to his candidacy as prosecutor is to advocate for restorative justice, but his approach is not grounded in the actual principles or application of the model. He also repeatedly expresses a foundational belief in the need for and function of a punitive justice system.
Savit: Savit’s approach to his candidacy as prosecutor is to exercise the power of the prosecutor’s office, to the extent he deems possible, to challenge and reverse some harms of the criminal punishment system by shifting resources and power to communities and challenging certain aspects of current punitive approaches.
Slay: Slay’s approach to her candidacy as prosecutor is to work within the current system to make improvements that focus on diversion and restorative justice, while keeping all such programming within the criminal punishment system itself, and resisting committing to actions that use the sway of the prosecutor’s office to challenge its current operation and function.
Stop Targeting Black and Brown Communities
Mack = D+, Savit = A+, Slay = B+
Mack: Mack is unwilling to agree to the majority of demands to stop targeting Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities, using excuses of high volume of cases and the amount of time and money to justify why he would not be fully committed to stopping the targeting of communities most marginalized by the criminal punishment system.
Savit: Savit agreed to all demands in the survey and stated he would use his position power to stop targeting Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities, a commitment also listed in his campaign platform. In his survey response, Savit provided further steps he would take to protect immigrants beyond the questions asked. He also provided detailed plans as to how he would work with an independent and external evaluator to assess racial profiling. He did not see LEIN as a barrier, and cited past experience in Detroit of having overseen an externally funded statistician with LEIN access to advocate for expunging criminal records.
Slay: Slay overall agreed with the demands that she use her position of power to stop targeting Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities. However, she provides little detail or actionable commitments and at no point does she address the challenges facing immigrant communities. Slay suggested addressing racially biased risk assessment tools by getting more money into the prosecutor’s office (which goes against our demands for divestment) in order to improve these tools (which goes against our demand to reject them altogether.) Notably, she also would not commit to partnering with an independent evaluator. Citing LEIN restrictions, Slay claimed that she does not have the authority to partner with external evaluators to assess cases for racial profiling.
Ensure Transparency & Accountability
Mack = B-, Savit = A+, Slay = B+
Mack: Although Mack stated that he agrees with the demands on ensuring transparency and accountability, he included a number of qualifications and concerns about budgetary limitations to creating a dashboard––calling into question the reliability of his commitment..
Savit: Savit is the most committed of the three candidates to ensuring transparency and accountability. Many of his answers to our survey are included as components of his platform and he has provided more details than opposing candidates as to how he would ensure transparency and accountability, including citing examples of prosecutors in other states.
Slay: Slay is mostly in agreement to ensure transparency and accountability within the criminal punishment system. However, she is less detailed in her answers.
Decriminalize Mental Health & Poverty
Mack = D-, Savit = A+, Slay = A-
Mack: Mack claims to be “a restorative justice prosecutor” and states that he believes treatment must be provided to those with mental health challenges, and that mental health and poverty are root causes and should be recognized as such. However, he regularly cites examples and scenarios that are fear-based and play into harmful stereotypes of mental illness, and consistently argues for extremely punitive responses in such cases, rather than a restorative justice approach.
Savit: Savit is vocal about stopping the criminalization of poverty and mental health and diverting folks away from the criminal punishment system. He also is the most outspoken advocate of any candidate for the elimination of cash bail.
Slay: Slay generally agrees with declining to prosecute and diverting folks with mental illness away from the system. However, she makes exceptions for violent offenses, which is a distinction she cites regularly, one that is based on often arbitrary and racially-biased functions of the criminal punishment system.
Treat Kids with Dignity & Compassion
Mack = D-, Savit = A, Slay = B
Mack: Mack stated that he would like to see youth diverted from the system, but also claimed he does not have the power to advocate for that and consistently cites exceptions and offers reasons for why he believes young people should be prosecuted.
Savit: Savit generally supports diverting and lessening the impact of the criminal punishment system on the lives of youth, but would prosecute a young person who presented a danger to an identifiable person.
Slay: Slay generally supports diverting young people away from the system, but said she would not decline prosecution of youth for misdemeanors “if the law does not recommend this declination”. Slay consistently cites exceptions to her stated values by naming that she would not push against existing laws.
Stop the Machine
Mack = F, Savit = B, Slay = C
Mack: Mack cited his support for some of these demands in his survey responses but included a number of sweeping qualifications, citing many exceptions and limitations.
Savit: Though Savit generally agrees to working towards these demands, he cites exceptions and limitations, showing a willingness to shift or lessen the harmful impacts of these issues, but not eliminate them altogether.
Slay: Slay often states, and made clear especially in this section, that although she agrees in some ways with these demands, she feels that she does not have the power to impact these issues and will not challenge the law in order to do so.
Divest from the Machine & Invest in Communities
Mack = F, Savit = B, Slay = F
Mack: Mack supports investment in community-based resources. However, he is unwilling to commit to any kind of elimination or divestment in any aspect of the criminal punishment system, and regularly cites exceptions and arguments for punitive laws.
Savit: Savit states his commitment to divest from a number of aspects of the criminal punishment system, but cites some exceptions- he advocates for some aspects of “problem-solving courts” and in de-escalation training for police. Savit unequivocally supports investment in community-based programs and resources, separate from prosecutorial control.
Slay: This is the section that marked some of the widest gulfs between candidates’ positions. Slay will not commit to divesting from any aspect of the criminal punishment system. She is in favor of investing in re-entry, diversion, and other community-based programs, but believes that the prosecutor should have a seat at the table even in these spaces.
Scorecard Methodology
Candidate scores are based on an in-depth analysis of survey answers and comments, published platforms and website materials, and verbal statements at public forums. On some issues, survey responses contradicted information provided in survey comments, online platforms, and public commentary. Sometimes this was due to deep complexity in the issues being discussed. In other instances, the contradiction seemed to result from a lack of clarity in candidates’ positions and actionable commitments. As a result, the scores reflect a combination of candidates’ stated intentions as well as their plans to take action on these issues.
To view candidates’ survey responses, click here. To view candidates’ supplemental comments on the survey, and the clarifications provided to us in follow-up email correspondence, click here. To view our grading scale, click here. To view a pdf of the questionnaire, click here.
Any questions about these scores and/or scoring methodology can be directed to liberatewashco@gmail.com. Liberate! Don’t Incarcerate is a group of multi-racial, multi-generational, and queer Washtenaw County residents who are committed to creating a county that is grounded in love and communal healing and that embodies collective accountability for all humanity. Our volunteer team comprises counselors, social workers, public health workers, researchers, community builders, advocates for folks impacted by incarceration, and racial justice organizers & activists who care deeply about transformative justice. We are a issue-based community group and will not be endorsing any candidates as a collective.