Mitch Roth running for County Prosecutor

[JerryCarr]

I appreciate Mr. Dammerville's response, and I especially respect his candor regarding the investigation of the fire captain's case. The fact that there is a civil case pending does somewhat circunscribe the discussion, but the salient points are there. I would, however, add that a candidate for the office of County Prosecutor should make it his business to be familiar with such notorious cases. The case in question was only one of several such cases in the last several years that have left considerable negative impressions. It would have inspired more confidence in Mr. Roth had he been prepared.

In the interest of moving the discussion forward, I would now like to ask Mr. Roth (and Mr. Ashida, should he care to join in) what the Prosecutor's Office would do under his leadership to rectify such problems with investigations and evidence. Yes, I know that the Prosecutor does not control the police, but there are, or should be, avenues for communication, education, and correction of deficiencies.

It all comes down to accountability. The Prosecutor, being elected, has the supreme accountability and discomfort of dealing with the electorate, not to mention pests like me. The police and judiciary, however, are in need of structural accountability, something sadly lacking and requiring legislative or even constitutional reform. And yes, I have publicly and privately needled the Police Chief. I have also written emails to judges whom I thought needed a strong message, so I'm not just picking on you guys in the Prosecutor's Office.

[robguz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

I completely agree about that case being very disturbing.

But I also think it is not quite fair to ask a candidate to comment on the way his colleague handled a case, in a department where the candidate still works. It's basically the same as asking him to shred his boss in public in order to get your approval.

Mr. Roth handled the Ted Braxton case, so it was appropriate to ask him to discuss his decisions in that prosecution.

JMHO. If he feels he can comment on it fine.

---

Thanks Kathy, I didn't realize he was the one who handled it. That's all I need to know to know that I won't vote for him. Let's see, his office has 1, maybe 2 cases per year involving someone killing another person. I would think if any cases are going to go to trial, it would be those. This guy is getting 10 years maximum, and in reality less with good behavior. I'm sorry, but that is not enough. This guy could be out in a few years, driving drunk again, and if prosecuted would have no prior DUIs. That's outrageous!

I never said anything about not plea bargaining ever. Obviously there are not enough resources to take every case to trial, or even every solid case to trial. But there have been many, many other cases that have gone to trial in the past few years, and this is not one of them. Therefore, by his own actions, this is not the kind of case Mr. Roth feels is worth taking to trial. I'm actually quite liberal in my views on dealing with crime, and don't think everyone should just be thrown in jail for as long as possible.

Yes, I expect that when one is running for office in the office in which you work, if they think something in your office is messed up they need to state so. In other places I have lived in my life, it seems most of the time someone running for DA was already in the office and often running against their own current boss. That is politics.

The other case from this office that blows my mind is the guy who killed his son, dumped his dead body off a cliff, and then claimed self-defense and got off serving only 2 years! You'd think someone would get 2 years for failing to report such an event and littering. People with small pot farms have gotten more severe sentences.

There are things I agree with Mr. Roth on and I appreciate his willingness to respond here. But it sounds like if he wins, nothing is really going to change in the prosecutor's office.

[Rob Tucker]

It's a long way to November. Don't be afraid to ask questions of other candidates for the Prosecuting Attorney's office.... and let us all know what you find out.

[missydog1]

Thanks to those who responded to me, I see your points, for sure. I usually stay away from politics because I feel uncomfortable with the lesser observance of niceties -- more accusations, more hostility, more confrontational exchanges. Not saying it's not part of the process though, thanks for reminding me. []

I am the opposite. I'm not going to base my vote on one big case. I think it is quite likely that either of the candidates would have come to more or less the same outcome. There is more shaping the outcome than one person's desire to have it go a certain way. I am satisfied that Mr. Roth was personally saddened by the tragic death of Ted Braxton and did what he was able to do. I don't see any evidence that someone else could have made more happen.

Same with the fireman case, Mr. Damerville's response seems fair enough to me.

As bad as the big sensational cases are, my concern is more with the small potatoes cases that affect our daily quality of life here. I would like to hear more about why property crime and car break-ins can't be brought in check here.

It is really a damper to tourists that they can't park at a trailhead with anything in their car, and it bothers me too. Nothing ever seems to get done about it, yet most likely it is the same bad apples who are responsible over and over.

Question: do you see any way the prosecutor could influence what I feel is an epidemic of property crime?

Finally, count me in as one of those voters who feels the helicopter terrorism by the DEA needs to stop. Does your office have any power in that area?

[opihikao]

First, thank you Mr. Damerville for your insight and explanation (re; Fire Capt. case). Still an extremely difficult "pill to swallow", and with due respect, raises other concerns which are not in the scope of the Prosecutor's office. I'd still appreciate a response from Mr. Roth addressing the concerns raised in this case, including some of his ideas for possible solutions should he be elected.

As we try to move the discussion forward, (thank you, Mr. Carr) here is the description of the office we are discussing from the County website (link provided below):

DESCRIPTION: The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney is the legal agency responsible for prosecuting all violations of State and County laws, ordinances, rules, and/or regulations on behalf of the Big Island community as provided by Hawai‘i County Charter Article IX: Chapter 28; H.R.S. 28-1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION STATEMENT: The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney pursues justice with integrity and commitment.

DEPARTMENT GOALS:
1.To strive for just disposition of criminal cases and promote public safety and order through timely, efficient, and effective prosecution.
2.To ensure that victims and witnesses of crimes are treated with respect, courtesy, and sensitivity in their cooperation with criminal prosecution.
3.To improve the criminal justice system by identifying areas of need and working collaboratively with other criminal justice agencies and the community.
4.To encourage and promote crime prevention and early intervention initiatives to improve the quality of life on the Big Island.
5.Identify, promote and implement new and innovative approaches to solving crime problems.

http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/prosecuting-attorney/

It would be helpful to hear Mr. Roth and the other candidates address each of the goals listed, and the innovative ideas that they each may have in order to effect changes.

In these trying times, the crimes Kathy describes are another concern that takes both the police department and this office to coordinate the case(s). Too many cases and not enough resources seems to be the issue. Perhaps that is where we could help our elected officials decide where funding is required.

(*Off topic, apologies) Kathy, I believe the helicopter problem needs to be addressed at the federal level due to airspace being federally regulated, and when doing "green harvest" flights, the minimum 1500 ft. goes out the window. The FAA tower in Hilo will take complaint calls (& give you more info), which is used in their reports (including the "green harvest" flights). Check this site for more info:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan...enDocument

All in my opinion. Thank you for a good discussion. It's sorely needed.

[Kapohocat]

I am concerned about something I read that I have just found out Mitch Roth originated from his office and it has to do with the cyber-bullying bill.

From BIC comments:
"this bill was originally authored by Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Mitch Roth, who submitted it to the legislators..."

I was very surprised, if this is true, that Mitch Roth possibly co-authored such a poorly written bill. If a bill that may have major impact on expressing an opinion on our Hawaii internet is this poorly written, why does he deserve the top dog job?

It's a question not an opinion. I am seeking information. not saying Mitch Roth should not be the CP.

[missydog1]

What you see in the bill now is a result of what it became thanks to the process of passing through legislative offices and committees. It was not poorly written when it left Mr. Roth's purview, I can assure you.

Cat, you really ought to attribute when you quote (especially when the author is a Punaweb member). Kind of weird reading your post and having to wonder if you are quoting me. Without wading through 60 plus comments to check, I think you probably are. []

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH...

Cat, you really ought to attribute when you quote (especially when the author is a Punaweb member). Kind of weird reading your post and having to wonder if you are quoting me. Without wading through 60 plus comments to check, I think you probably are. []

---

Are you a moderator?

Although after 60+ comments of crap [on BIC], I actually did not realize it was you, but I did note where it came from.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2012/0.../#comments

The important part of the particular comment [in regards to Mitch Roth for County Prosecutor] on Tiffany Edward Hunts's Big Island Chronicle was Mitch Roth authored this bill.


The rest of the comments are nattering back and forth from Damon, KathyH, TomLackey, and a couple of others on who knows the most legalese, or is Tom a drunk porn cartoonist.

[missydog1]

This is Mitch Roth's topic, and I was already regretting my earlier comment on etiquette (thank you to opihikao et al for bothering to respond to me so nicely).

However, now Kapohocat is bringing a comment I made on Big Island Chronicle into the mix and asking Mr. Roth to defend himself based on my comment. I made a correction just now to my BIC comment in response to CSE (presumably Cat by a different handle), which I will copy over here for those who don't want to follow the link:

"I need to make a correction. Having reviewed my correspondence from two months ago, I need to revise this wording:

>>>Damon, this bill was originally authored by Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Mitch Roth, who submitted it to the legislators.

The context of this remark by me was that Damon was going off about how it was a waste of taxpayer money for unnecessary laws, and the point of my response was to inform Damon that Mitch Roth thought that the current statute needed amending and thought it worthwhile to have a hand in that process. I stand by that.

Now CSE is making comments trying to critique Mr. Roth for the current language of the bill. It was never my intent to imply that he authored this exact language. He is not a legislator. There is a difference between suggesting a needed amendment and authoring a bill, and mea culpa, I should have been more precise in the wording of my rather late night response to Damon Tucker.

I certainly apologize to Mr. Roth that he is now getting queried over perceived flaws in the language of the bill.

I do have a copy of an email that submitted some language to a legislator. The language was actually the result of a collaboration, and it is not the same as the final version of the bill. IMHO it was better crafted at its inception.

What we see now is the work of law produced by committee, and I think that criticism of the language is appropriately directed to the Chairperson of the relevant committee, NOT to someone who had an initial hand in asking the legislature to work on an amendment."

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2012/0...ent-124502

If Mr. Roth wants to comment on his original language or intent, that is of course up to him. I'm not going to publish any email(s) here that I didn't write.

[Kapohocat]

I am going over to the bill thread to continue this discussion, although I think it is important to know someone who is running for a prosecutor thinks about the bill.

Maybe he can answer us what his intention was which is my original question!