[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning everyone. You might call today's show Two Victory Laps and One, No Victory Lap plus a 50-year-old piece of gold. The two victory laps, we will meet two of the winners of important New York city primary races, Alvin Bragg for Manhattan DA, and Antonio Reynoso for Brooklyn Borough President. The no victory lap conversation will be about your Sha'Carri Richardson not getting to go to the Olympics because of a positive marijuana test. Why are they still enforcing against the use of an increasingly legal, non-performance enhancing drug? We'll explore the role of race, and why it was ever enforced in the first place. In our 50-year-old piece of gold, we'll continue our series on 1971 as an amazing year in music with the enduring impact of the Marvin Gaye classic, What's Going On.

We begin with victory lap number one. Alvin Bragg won the Democratic primary to succeed side Cy Vance Jr. as Manhattan District Attorney. For those of you who didn't follow this race, Bragg is 47 years old, he's from Harlem, went to Harvard Law School. He's been a prosecutor at both the state and federal levels and a civil rights attorney. Some of you may have seen that he was endorsed by former US attorney Preet Bharara, who Bragg used to work under in the Southern district office. He was also endorsed by the New York Times, which said he has the nimbleness and moral compass that Manhattan needs and is committed to reasonable reforms to improve both policing and prosecutions.

Some of those proposed reforms have gotten the most press attention, especially a list of more minor offenses Bragg says it no longer makes sense to prosecute. As Manhattan DA, he will also inherit the prosecutions related to the Trump organization unless there's a surprisingly swift plea deal in those cases. Although there's a general election in November, yet to be held since Republicans don't ever win that seat, let's meet the very likely next Manhattan, DA Alvin Bragg. Mr. Bragg, we really appreciate you making some time for us in an eventful week for you. Welcome to WNYC.

Alvin Bragg: Thank you so much for having me on. Good morning. I look forward to talking.

Brian Lehrer: Can we talk about your bio a little bit first to help people get to know you? Where in Harlem did you grow up, and what were some of your early experiences that made you think you'd want to go to law school?

Alvin Bragg: Sure. I grew up in Central Harlem starting out North and in Esplanade Gardens for those who are familiar with the geography in the 140s, and then moved to the 130s. I went to law school in large part because of my early experiences. As you mentioned, I'm 47, so I grew up during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. Before I was 21, I had a gun pointed at me 6 times. Three by the NYPD during unconstitutional stops, but also three by people who were not police officers. That combination of experiences focused me on the intersection of public safety and fairness, and the fact that we need both. I've focused my career both as a prosecutor  

and a civil rights lawyer in large part because of those early experiences.

Brian Lehrer: How about that transition? Why did you want to be a civil rights attorney at first and what made you want to go from that into prosecution?

Alvin Bragg: There were always dual interests. My early role as a civil rights lawyer, I was also a criminal defense lawyer. I was working on criminal cases at the same time and the specific focus of my civil rights work was police accountability. It was always under the umbrella of focus on criminal justice issues. I started out on criminal defense and civil rights, and then went to the New York State Attorney General's office, where I did public corruption and civil rights work. Over time, as I was practicing, I realized really the profound power and discretion of the prosecutor's office, and the ability and possibility to have a real positive impact. That's why I pursued that ultimately.

Brian Lehrer: Who was the New York State Attorney General when you were there? Which year was that?

Alvin Bragg: I had two stints. I was a junior lawyer under the Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, then I went to the New York City Council where I worked on-- defended progressive legislation passed by the council. Then I was a federal prosecutor under Preet Bharara, as you mentioned, and then I returned to the attorney general's office, and headed up the Social Justice Division and then, ultimately, with the chief deputy overseeing the whole office under Attorney Generals, Eric Snyderman and Barbara Underwood.

Brian Lehrer: Today we have the expression, progressive prosecutor, to refer to people who are looking to rebalance the fight against crime and the fight against unnecessary mass incarceration. How do you think the profession has evolved during your time as a state and federal prosecutor, and how do you think you have evolved on that spectrum over time leading up to this campaign?

Alvin Bragg: I'll talk about my own personal evolution first. When I was in college, I was a intern, a summer investigator at the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, a pioneering public defender shop. In law school, I did criminal defense clinic, and as we noted, I started out as a criminal defense lawyer. For me, really, because of those early stops, I was very apprehensive about prosecution and something that I share with my law enforcement partners now, the impact, what you do today in this stop will affect tomorrow's witness or victim, and in my case, the trajectory of my career.

As I said, the more I worked in this space, I realized the ability to affect change. As a federal prosecutor, I prosecuted an FBI agent for lying, also did public corruption while working on the case that led to the conviction of a former majority leader, Malcolm Smith. I, my own personal view, began to see prosecution more broadly. Then when I returned to the New York State Attorney General's office and had the opportunity then in leadership to focus on cases I like to do as Manhattan District Attorney, prosecuting employers who were engaged in wage theft from hardworking workers, prosecuting landlords who harassed tenants out of their homes.

That's my own personal evolution. I think certainly nationally we've seen an important conversation triggered in part by academic work. I think it was Michelle Alexander's book and The New Jim Crow, and Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, and others obviously, but it triggered this conversation, and then we've seen people run for office, they're talking about issues differently. I'd say starting right here in New York City, my dear late friend Ken Thompson, but really is, I would [unintelligible 00:07:37] to think about 1.0 version, of starting to think about prosecution differently then, of course, we've seen that grow and develop across the nation.

I am unabashedly so a Manhattan exceptionalist. I think Manhattan is the best place on earth. I've lived here my entire life and I think it's a great opportunity. Obviously, the primary function is to serve Manhattan and to deliver our vision here, but I think it's true. From hip hop, to fashion, to the arts, what happens in Manhattan travels. I think there's a great opportunity for what we do here to travel and that's why getting it right in Manhattan is so important.

Brian Lehrer: Well listeners, we can take a few questions for the democratic nominee for Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg. 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280, or tweet a question @BrianLehrer. Mr. Bragg, The New York Times endorsement of you noted that 80% of the cases prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's office in 2019 were misdemeanors and that you plan to restructure the office to stop using the office to criminalize poverty. Would you put that the same way The Times did, that the current practices criminalize poverty?

Alvin Bragg: I would. This is a very important point to me, having spent my entire life in one of the most affected communities by the criminal justice system. What we're talking about on my block, and I think most blocks are gun shootings. Things that are public safety issues that we need to urgently address, and not the cases that consume much of the city's criminal docket. A case that really drew my attention, my father used to run homeless shelters, was a homeless person who was prosecuted for using a counterfeit bill to buy food and toothpaste. He had some prior interactions with the criminal justice system. The attorney's office recommended a sentence of 5 to 10 years for, and I think it's [unintelligible 00:09:56] criminalized poverty, food, and toothpaste. These are [unintelligible 00:10:00] human essentials.

I don't think anyone's sitting around their kitchen table writing about that from a public safety perspective. You had a shooting down the block from me, a friend of mine was shot at, but he was not the intended target. This was just a couple of days ago, and so we shift the focus from much of what that 80% is about, to the things that I think are urgent public safety issues. That's a priority for me.

Brian Lehrer: Criminalizing toothpaste is one thing. The list of things that you campaigned on not prosecuting anymore has raised some eyebrows. As you know, a range of things from fare beating, to resisting arrest as a standalone charge, to many cases of gun possession, to many traffic violations. Can we go down some of those for you to clarify for the listeners? They probably heard maybe sensational headline versions of these, and I'm sure they would like to hear you elaborate a little bit more in your own words. On fare evasion, would paying to get on a bus or a subway in

Manhattan in effect be optional with USDA?

Alvin Bragg: Credit here to the current district attorney who started this practice. I view this as a civil matter, not a criminal one. I think it's important on all of these to talk, [unintelligible 00:11:22] for many of them to say, "We're not talking about doing nothing. We're talking about whether there should be a criminal sanction." I think about, I don't know if you've got an easy pass if you're a driver, but someone goes through an easy pass, we don't have five police officers pull you over with guns drawn. They send you a letter and you got to pay. It's not about having no government response, but it's about, "Why don't we use the most profound government power the restriction of liberty for."

If I can, I'm just going to give you one example of just my framing on this, because I think it's important to people here, and they said, "Oh, you're not going to prosecute, it means you don't care." Well, no, that's not true. I think of untaxed cigarette sales, which the NYPD at one point at the highest level decided to target. We know those were mostly of younger Black men selling them on street corners. Ultimately, one instance leading to the death of Eric Garner, who was accused of that, even though he was breaking up a fight.

At the Attorney General's office, that we had the same call, "What are you going to do on this?" We took a completely different, I think, far more effective approach. We said, "Well how did these untaxed cigarettes end up here?" They were being shipped in the thousands by Federal Express and UPS in violation of law. We sued them. We went to court, no one died. In one instance, we went to trial, and we got more than $100 million in untaxed revenue back to the city and state, and we took these untaxed cigarettes off the street. That's to me an example of just how we should be deploying government power. We should just not ignore the fact of fare evasion, but we shouldn't use a criminal sanction. [crosstalk] You also know that-- Okay, go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

Alvin Bragg: You know that resisting arrest, many of these policies could have come up from my experience growing up, and my experience as a prosecutor. Resisting arrest, I've experienced both ways. I've had friends arrested for the standalone resisting arrest. What was the person resisting? If the officer can't tell me that, I've experienced it both, I said as a friend, as a defense lawyer, and as a practicing lawyer, if there's no arrest if they were resisting, I found it's generally a pretext. It's for "mouthing off." I don't think those kind of prosecutions advance public safety.

I'll know. I have prosecuted someone for assaulting a police officer. That's a crime. Assault is an issue, but the standalone resisting arrest, I found in my experience to be pre-textual and it's not something that I think advances public safety. There are other charges. Obstructing governmental administration is also in that family, the things that people get arrested for that I found to be oftentimes baseless and generally pre-textual.

Brian Lehrer: I bet that'll surprise a lot of people to hear that anybody gets arrested

for resisting arrest without the police officers attempting to arrest them for something else that precedes the resisting. That happens?

Alvin Bragg: Yes, it happens. As the defense lawyer in my friend group, I've gotten lots of calls in the middle of the night to help folks out, and that's been one that I've certainly seen. I would love to talk about gun possession because I do get asked about that a lot, and I think it's important to talk about it contextualized.

Brian Lehrer: Good. Let me jump in here because we need to take a break at some point during this segment. Let me do it now, so we can take a good deep dive on your relationship to gun possession charges because if there's anything that's gotten pressed during your run for DA, the nomination, it was that. We'll dive into that for real with Alvin Bragg right after this. Brian Lehrer, on WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Were talking to the winner of the Democratic primary for Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. We'll get to a few of your phone calls in a few minutes. 646-435-7280, if you have a question for him. 646-435-7280 or tweet a question @BrianLehrer. Gun possession. In this year of rising gun violence, obviously, it surprised some people who have heard this again, I say as I did, in the earlier part of the conversation, maybe as a sensational headline, and would love to hear you go deeper on it. When you say you're not going to prosecute some cases of possessing a gun, where does that come from? What distinction are you making? I know you're making some distinction between possessing an illegal weapon and shooting one. Go ahead and introduce people to your thinking on that.

Alvin Bragg: Sure. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity. I've dealt with guns both professionally and personally. I have had an AK Semi-Automatic weapon pointed to my head by someone who was possessing it. That was alarming, disturbing, and this happened when I was a young teenager. I remember at this moment, that's very serious. I've also had a family member whose best friend was shot and killed in front of them, and I will never forget the blank stare in that relative's eyes. Again, a lot of personal conflicts that helps you to draw these lines.

The best example of what I've said on gun possession is that, we need to be very thoughtful about when we incarcerate. I've got two examples from my own life of times where I think gun possession charge would not have been appropriate. One is my father. He had an illegal gun on our home growing up in Harlem. I noticed from as a child, he wanted to protect the home, so he'd pull it out if he thought we were being burglarized. When I got older, I told him, "Dad. we need to turn that gun in." He did that under a gun-- It was a buyback [unintelligible 00:17:53] program. The notion of being 65 years old at the time, a gun that had not been discharged in 35 years, was possessed as matter of defending the homestead and one that -

Brian Lehrer: Can I jump in for a second only because your phone is breaking up a bit. I don't know if there's something you can do to be in a stable a spot as you can, but just it's getting a little hard to hear some of the answers for the listeners.

Alvin Bragg: Oh, I'm sorry. Is this is better.

Brian Lehrer: I think so. Go ahead and we'll see.

Alvin Bragg: I was saying, my father with a gun that I believe he purchased lawfully in another state, 30, 40 years ago, and had when I was growing up in Harlem and used when he thought our home-- used meaning, he pulled it out and I saw the gun when he thought the home was being burglarized. Then as an adult, I encouraged him and he did turn the gun in, because I said to him, I said, "Dad, you're 60 some odd years old," this is some time ago. "This gun hasn't been discharged in years. Someone's going to come in here on a medical call for you, and you're going to end up in jail because of a gun," and that would be a case that wouldn't advance public safety. Now, that didn't happen. We turned the gun in, but that's one example of I think a gun possession charge that would [unintelligible 00:19:24].

Another one. My brother-in-law was a college student, was engaged in a schoolyard fistfight. [unintelligible 00:19:36] went to Harvard for law school, also went to Harvard for college. The kind of fistfight that at Harvard, would have gotten you into some trouble, but I can assure you no one would have been arrested. He was at a historically black college. All of the boys involved in the fistfight were arrested. One of the boys had a gun on him. They charged all of the boys with constructive possession, and my brother-in-law did more than a year in jail for a gun that he had not touched and didn't know was there. I think that's a bad case.

I just think we need to be thoughtful and always ask ourselves the question, "Will this case advance public safety?" I think the answer to that question should be our guidance and it will take us to prioritizing the cases that I think Manhattanites want us to prioritize.

Brian Lehrer: You've certainly gotten the attention of the conservative press on some of the things we were just talking about. A New York Post headline about you this week said, "Truly radical pro-crime ideas." The conservative magazine National Review has a headline that says "Good news criminals, Manhattans next DA has your back." What would you say, not to those headline writers, but to ordinary people in Manhattan who read headlines like that, and start out looking at you with a question in their heads about whether you are pro-crime or have criminals' backs?

Alvin Bragg: The first thing I would-- I think it's in the spirit of this conversation is let's have a real dialogue. Let's talk and not [unintelligible 00:21:12] at the headlines. I understand folks are busy and--

Brian Lehrer: Whoops. I think we lost Alvin Bragg's line. You know what I think?

Alvin Bragg: Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Now we can hear you. I think we're back. Try it again. We did hear you saying, "Let's try to have a real dialogue and look beyond those headlines."

Alvin Bragg: [inaudible 00:21:42].

Brian Lehrer: Okay. You know what? This is not working right at the moment. I think my producer's going to get on the line with you and try to call you back and see if we can stabilize this line. I know everybody wants to hear the answer to that particular question. We'll also get to some phone calls with Alvin Bragg, winner of the Democratic primary from Manhattan DA. I think what's going to make sense here is to take another break and that's good news listeners, because it means there'll be a point later in the show where we won't have to take one at all. Stay with us, Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We continue with Alvin Bragg.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. I think the prize for winning the primary for Manhattan DA should be a better cell phone. Let's see if we can continue with Alvin Bragg, and if we have better reception now. You were talking back to the headline writers from the New York Post and National Review. Want to give it another shot?

Alvin Bragg: Sure. I apologize. I don't know what's happening. I was saying, my day job, I'm a visiting professor at New York Law School. I teach criminal law classes, and I encourage robust dialogue from people from all political viewpoints. I think the first start was, "Let's have a real conversation and let's have that conversation be rooted in the data," which in my op-eds I talked through and cite about actual experiences in the courtroom which I have, and I think some of these pundits do not have. Then also what's happening on the street, which I know, again, from my own experiences, and these aren't just things in the past. I've had shootings in and around my block a lot recently.

The notion that I don't care about this, or I'm not focused on this is really antithetical to reason. I've got to walk these streets. My family and loved ones walk in the street. My response is yes, of course, I care. If you look at my body of work, you look at what I've done, I've worked on both public safety issues and fairness issues. I find that a lot of people pushing this narrative don't want to talk about the fairness part. They don't want to talk about the police accountability. They don't want to talk about the effects and the collateral consequences of these cases that have nothing to do with public safety.

I just urge all of us to have more robust, full dialogue. I welcome these opportunities to talk to you. I would talk to other folks who they invited me on, who have different viewpoints, but really to work through. I can point them to the data, and I can point them to my experiences in the courtroom, the cases I've done. Fundamentally, I think something I want to underscore is that the equity and fairness issues I talk about are also public safety issues.

I know from my experience that we can't build cases without community trust, without victims coming forward, and without witnesses. Many of the things I talk about are going to help with that. Not arresting people and alienating them for things that are junk cases. People know that it's not just the person you arrest, it's the whole community. I can tell you periods of time where people my age on my block weren't talking to the police at all because of something they had done to one of us. Many of  

the measures I talk about on fairness and equity and accountability, which some are resisting, ultimately advance public safety because they help law enforcement make cases. I know that, and I think I know that in a way that many of these pundits don't because I've done the work.

Brian Lehrer: Michael in Laurelton Queens, you're on WNYC with Manhattan DA nominee Alvin Bragg. Hello, Michael.

Michael: Hi, how are you doing? I just wanted to congratulate Mr. Bragg on his win and indicate to him that I remember him as a youngster because I served with his mother. We were coworkers teaching mathematics in a state office building. I had been to his home on several occasions. I served with her for a number of years before she moved on to BMCC and had a great career, moved up, and I think was number two person at the college. I wanted to congratulate him and ask the question--

Brian Lehrer: Wait a minute. Michael, I have a question for you first. What was Alvin like as a kid?

Michael: I didn't know him. I've seen him on certain occasions, but I didn't know him personally, but I remember, I have to say that I remember when his mother was pregnant with him. On occasion, I would see him when I go to her house, or the family's house, and when they had parties and get-togethers.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. I thought we could get a little inside information there, but I guess not. Go ahead with your question, Michael.

Michael: I want to know, how does your office intersect with the city administration to help reduce crime, in general, and gun violence, in particular?

Brian Lehrer: Michael thank you for your call.

Alvin Bragg: Thanks so much also for mentioning my mom. It's been a real joy of this campaign. My mom and my dad have both passed away relatively recently and a real joy of the campaign to hear people who worked with them talk about that work with praise. They were both public servants, my mom an educator, my dad running homeless shelters. I think this question really is important because I talk a lot about what the district attorney can do and in public safety can do a lot. We're in the midst of obviously having a lot of turnover in city government and how we interact with others.

The governor obviously has an announcement on guns yesterday, the mayor through the NYPD and through others, will be focusing on this. I think that particularly incoming class of leadership, the district attorney really be calling upon us to focus on all of the above approach. Yes, traditional prosecutions but also funding of our Cure Violence programs. These are folks who have been justice-involved, who intervene often when there's a shooting. We know that there can be a retaliatory shooting, so they will intervene and try to diffuse and take the temperature down and the city funding that and partnering with those important things that comes out of city hall.

Also, the youth enrichment and prevention through that means, and then obviously the NYPD. I look forward to, and have been in that space. one of my roles as chief deputy in the New York Attorney General's office was interacting with others in government, the DA's office, the law enforcement, and City Hall. I look forward to doing it so we can address these issues holistically.

Brian Lehrer: Since you mentioned governor Cuomo's first in the nation state-level state of emergency declaration for gun violence this week, did you take a look at his seven-point plan? Do you think the state of emergency is just sensational headline-grabbing? Do you think he's onto something? What's your take on that?

Alvin Bragg: I think we should all be talking about the gun violence. To me is an urgent issue. I welcome the governor talking about it. I do think that no, an action plan, a bullet plan is good, but what happens next is more important. As a number of commentators point out, a lot of the responses really to our city powers and come from the city. I would hope that the governor and the mayor, who obviously have a relationship that we've seen play out publicly at times, can coordinate on this because this is something that we need the state police and NYPD, the governor and the mayor on, but with view of it through a public health lens and what I would call an all-of-the-above approach, I think, is important.

Brian Lehrer: Ed on the Lower East Side, you're on WNYC with Alvin Bragg. Hi, Ed. 

Ed: Hi. Congratulations to the new district attorney. I'm an ordinary person.

Brian Lehrer: Nominee.

Ed: [chuckles] Been here since 1963. I also was impressed by the endorsement by the New York Times, which I read every day as well as reading every day the print editions of the New York Post. I'm a little concerned listening to you this morning because I read the endorsements. I am not personally worried about being shot, although I live in one of the poorest districts in Manhattan, actually, but I am concerned about something that I don't think this radio station is actually very concerned about.

I am concerned about the quality of life issues that most people in this city live with every single day. One of which, by the way, is as innocuous-sounding as fare beating, not paying the fare. That is extremely demoralizing for working people and a lot of people who pay the fare. By having the district attorney-- You're not the first one, your predecessor, Vance, did the same thing, announce that he wasn't going to deal with any kind of enforcement of fare jumping, of course, therefore encouraging fare jumping.

I'd also say the same things about the conditions in the trains, in general, including having to face every single elevator at the Broadway-Lafayette station before the pandemic, seeing in the daylight, in daytime, along with other women, stepping into elevators where people have used it as a toilet.

Brian Lehrer: Ed, I'm going to have to get a response because we're running out of

time in the segment. You put a lot of real issues for a lot of people on the table there. Mr. Bragg, how would you begin to respond?

Alvin Bragg: Those are significant issues. I would go back to when we were talking about fare evasion earlier and what I talked about on our untaxed cigarette enforcement. Yes, those are all important issues. I don't think those are ones that we should criminalize. Seeing the effects in the system firsthand, I know the power of the deprivation of liberty. That doesn't mean we should ignore them. That goes back, I think, to the last caller's issue, coordinating with City Hall, working on some of the cleanliness issues with the district attorney's office can be helpful. I view the DA as being a part of the Board of Trustees for the city, so helpful in incubating ideas and forwarding ideas.

Look, I take the train, I pay my fare, I smell the smell of urine in the train station. It's no good. We need to address that, but I think that's a separate issue from the spectrum of government powers. The most punitive power is the restriction of liberty, and there's so many things we can do between there. I think that I'm going to welcome to be a part of that conversation with City Council members, the mayor, and others, but I don't think we should be reflexively going to incarceration for the issues you flagged.

Brian Lehrer: Last question, and a follow-up to Ed and big picture. The number of murders in New York City, as you well know, declined from 2245 in 1990 to 289 by 2018 through the mass incarceration era, the broken windows era, and until the pandemic through the de Blasio starting to pull back on those things era. If it wasn't from the so-called broken windows approach of cracking down on these small crimes to not signal to criminals they could get away with big crimes, what, in your view, did make New York and most other American cities so much safer over the last 30 years?

Alvin Bragg: This is a complex issue which academics have written about. I think there's no authoritative answer. I think you're onto something when you note that it wasn't just New York City, it was many other cities. I think it's a combination of issues, the macroeconomic issues, things that were done in various cities. I think, and maybe just to pick at some piece of it in the time it'll allow, I think what we should not go back to, [unintelligible 00:35:17], so I'm going to respond to that, is the stop-and-frisk and saying that that was a driver of it.

When I was at the New York Attorney General's office, we looked at every single stop for a four-year period and analyzed the disposition of cases that grew out of it. Of all the stops, only 0.1% resulted in a conviction for a gun offense. To me, that speaks to the efficacy of the program. I didn't exactly answer the why because I think that's a complicated, longer academic, but the what not to go back to, I think, is, to me, very important. I hope it's okay that I pieced out that part [inaudible 00:36:01].

Brian Lehrer: Bill Bratton, former police commissioner, would say there's a big difference between broken windows, going after the small things when they occur, and stop-and-frisk, which was this ridiculously huge dread map.

Alvin Bragg: I'll respond directly to broken windows. You're right, there's a distinction. I didn't mean to conflate the two. The authors of broken windows, the living author wrote a look-back sometime after the initial one and made the extraordinarily important point, which I've been trying to convey during this, which is that they said if there's a broken window, we should fix it lest disorder results. What they didn't say is that we should incarcerate the kid who threw the rock.

Yes, we should address the issues that your last caller mentioned, the urine in the train stations, and the other things that [unintelligible 00:36:52], but that's different, and the authors of the broken windows thesis made this clear, than criminalizing and locking everyone up in the process. I think that's an important point and that's what has been a throughline in my career. Yes, let's address the untaxed cigarette sales, but let's do it in a smart way. I often say, let's follow the money in that kind of issue. Let's follow the money and find the principal wrongdoer. Let's address the root causes. Yes, we don't want to have broken windows, but we don't want to incarcerate the person who's throwing the rock. I think that's an important distinction.

Brian Lehrer: Manhattan DA nominee, Alvin Bragg. Thank you so much for coming on with us. Congratulations again on your nomination after a hard-fought primary. Best of luck accomplishing all your goals in the job. I think if you win, we all win. We hope you'll keep coming on with us once you're in office.

Alvin Bragg: I welcome the conversation. I thank you. I'll make sure when I come on that my phone is better.

Brian Lehrer: That's a deal. Thank you so much.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.