Manhattan District Attorney Survey: Richard Aborn

aborn_newphoto_low-res.jpg
Political Parties:
Democratic Party
Working Families Party

http://www.abornforda.com

Candidate Submitted Biography:

Richard Aborn is a proven crime-fighter and true progressive with a vision to effectively prevent crime and the track record to get it done. No one will be tougher going after violent crime — but it's time for new ideas that go beyond the old reactive model of simply prosecuting crime after it occurs.

A former prosecutor and defense attorney, Aborn knows the criminal justice system inside and out. After graduating from law school in 1979, Richard began his long career in criminal justice as an Assistant District Attorney, spending five years in the Manhattan DA's office under Robert Morgenthau. At the District Attorney’s office, Aborn prosecuted the most violent of felonies, convicting murderers and those committing other heinous crimes.
In 1984, Aborn left the D.A.’s office and started his own law firm, Aborn and Anesi, where he worked as a criminal defense attorney and represented victims of fraud.

As an Assistant District Attorney, Aborn had become enormously frustrated by the relentless nature of guns used in homicides, leading to the realization that the fight against gun violence cannot be won one gun at a time -- or even with New York’s own tough gun control laws. As a result, Aborn would later devote many years leading the charge to pass rigorous national and state gun laws rather than just prosecuting the violent crimes committed with guns.

In 1992, Aborn was tapped by Handgun Control, Inc. to be its national president -- and went on to achieve nationwide stature as a preeminent gun control leader in the United States.

At the helm of Handgun Control, Aborn stood up to the NRA time and again, handed them their first real series of legislative defeats, and was hailed as a mastermind behind the successful passage of the Brady Bill, the national Assault Weapons Ban and the ban on large volume clips.

Richard was commissioned by New York City in 1999 to conduct an investigation into the NYPD’s disciplinary decisions in the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo. He also conducted an investigation into the department’s disciplinary system and its response to civilian complaints of misconduct. After his report, the number of complaints being dismissed went down significantly.

In 2004, Aborn joined Constantine Cannon, a nationally-recognized law firm with 50 to 175 lawyers (depending on case load). As managing partner of the firm, Aborn supervises a large number of attorneys, prepares them for trial, reviews legal strategies, and manages a significant budget.

Richard is currently on leave from his position as president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York, which he joined in 2005. In that capacity, Richard led on several important criminal justice issues, including helping pass a new state law allowing for expanded use of DNA to fight crime and exonerate the innocent. Aborn was a vocal and effective leader on this issue, and assembled a coalition of supporters for the legislation, including victims and advocates.

Aborn is an active member of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Wrongful Convictions, continuing to attend meetings and lead on the issue. As Chair of the Task Force’s Compensation Subcommittee, Aborn helped devise ways to adequately compensate those who have been wrongfully convicted.

Richard Aborn also serves on the boards of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Harlem Mothers SAVE (a program aimed at preventing gun violence in Harlem by going after its root causes), the Westside Crime Prevention Council, the Tanenbaum Center, PBS/WLIW, and CASES, an organization focused on deterring youth from crime.

Richard has lived in Manhattan his entire adult life and currently resides on the Upper West Side with his wife, Ingrid, and their 18-year-old daughter.

Manhattan District Attorney Survey: Richard Aborn

Question 1:
Please explain your legal philosophy in regard to the prosecution and prevention of vehicular crimes. How does your position, if at all, differ from that of the current office of the Manhattan District Attorney.

To effectively prosecute and prevent vehicular crimes in New York City, we must increase public awareness of the high traffic fatality rates. When the city focused on driving down the homicide rate, it was successful. The District Attorney’s office must send the message that all vehicular fatalities will be vigorously investigated to determine potential criminal liability.
Essential to educating the public about vehicular crimes is changing the language in which we speak of such crimes. Many times we call these incidents “traffic accidents.” These incidents are traffic fatalities and will be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted as such. My office will send this message to the public and the borough based investigative unit that comes to investigate vehicular crime scenes.
The DA’s office will compile data of the vehicular fatality cases it investigates every year and publish an annual report, including the cause. This will help prevent future vehicular fatalities by educating the public & the NYPD so that they can create programs to prevent future fatalities.
The DA’s office will include training programs on how to prosecute these complicated crimes. The office will also work closely with the family members of the deceased to ensure victims have a seat at the table.


Question 2:
The Bronx and Brooklyn district attorney offices have a Bureau Chief position to oversee vehicular crimes. Do you believe this position is important/necessary and why/why not?

Yes, it is important that a senior and experienced prosecutor oversee the investigation of these cases. This demonstrates the importance of these cases and the seriousness with which the office will take them.


Question 3:
Data from the State DMV and City DOT show that speeding contributes to roughly 2,400 motor vehicle crashes in New York City each year, nearly three times the number attributed to drunk driving. Would your office proactively work with the NYPD to reduce these types of dangerous driving behavior?

I believe in creating an open dialogue between the DA’s office, the NYPD and the community- so that we can create broad based solutions to preventing motor vehicle crashes. As stated above, the DA’s office will publish an annual report on the cause of death in the vehicular fatality cases it prosecutes so that the police department and Department of Transportation will have a more acute understanding of why traffic fatalities occur and therefore be prepared to take steps to prevent these fatalities.


Question 4:
Where appropriate, would your office pursue state-wide legislative reforms in the area of vehicular crimes?

I think it’s important to recognize that statutory changes clearly change behavior. Therefore if we want our streets to be safer, we must be more proactive in statutory reforms in regards to how people are allowed to drive in this city.
I am a firm believer in graduated sanctions. When you violate the criminal law multiple times there needs to be an enhanced punishment. You cannot get away with repeatedly breaking the law.
I also think there needs to be an addition to the New York Penal Code that allows prosecutors to prosecute for vehicular assault even when drugs and/or alcohol are not involved. There exist egregious cases where a driver engages in criminally reckless conduct and causes an injury, and the statute should provide prosecutors with a clearly defined crime with which to charge these individuals. The absence of alcohol and drugs should not allow individuals to drive recklessly and without regard for human life. Road rage should not be tolerated in our city.


Question 5:
What efforts, if any, would your office undertake to increase the penalties attached to the offense(s) of vehicular homicide and/or assault in instances where drugs or alcohol are not present?

I am willing to consider supporting increased penalties attached to vehicular assault, manslaughter and homicide. However, I think increased enforcement and the ability to prosecute for vehicular assault even when drugs and/or alcohol are not involved will have a greater impact on behavior.


Question 6:
Please explain your view of the "Rule of Two" and how it may affect your office's handling of vehicular homicide cases. In particular, the offense of Criminally Negligent Homicide.

I do not support the Rule of Two and I believe it is ready to be tested. I agree with the court’s ruling in People v. Senisi, that a single traffic violation can be sufficient to support a conviction if the circumstances warrant it. I believe the fundamental lesson that prosecutors need to draw from this court decision is to evaluate each fatality on a case-by-case basis. We must understand the totality of the circumstances surrounding a vehicular fatality and not make rushed judgments about whether or not to prosecute.
All too often when any of us are driving, we see someone careening at high rates of speed and think to ourselves “that person is going to kill someone.” And the reality is, they can in fact kill people. These people need to know that if they violate the law they will be arrested.
I will make sure that the DA’s office has a thorough understanding of the law of criminally negligent homicide and I believe a comprehensive understanding of these laws will lead to a willingness to prosecute.


Submitted by RichardAborn on Sun, 08/09/2009 - 15:52.
Submitted by RichardAborn on Sun, 08/09/2009 - 12:49.
Submitted by RichardAborn on Sun, 08/09/2009 - 15:52.