D.C. City Council poised to appoint convicted murderer to city's sentencing commission

In 2023, 272 people were murdered in Washington, D.C. That was an increase of 25 percent from 2022. It was the highest total since 1997.

Per capita, the city’s homicide rate was the fifth highest in the nation, behind only New Orleans, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Memphis. Meanwhile, the arrest rate for D.C. homicides was only 47 percent, the lowest in 16 years.

Some D.C. city officials, including the liberal mayor, are proposing measures to address the situation. One of them is stiffer sentences for gun-related crimes. However, the city council does not seem to be on board.

That’s not to say that the city council is devoid of ideas when it comes to sentencing. It has ideas, all right. One of them is to appoint a convicted murderer as its voting representative on the D.C. Sentencing Commission — the body that drafts and modifies criminal sentencing guideline.

The murderer in question is Joel Castón, killer of an 18-year old in a 1994 shooting. Castón, 18 at the time, falsely claimed he was innocent, but was convicted of the crime.

In a just system, he would, at a minimum, remain behind bars until he dies or until his victim rises from the dead — whichever comes first. Instead, he was released after 27 years.

Now, Castón wants to help determine the sentences his fellow murderers and other felons will receive. And, believe it or not, he’s close to fulfilling that ambition.

D.C. councilman Phil Mendelson, who never had the privilege of meeting Castón in a dark alley, nominated him for the Commission and, according to the Washington Post, “a majority of the council members favor his appointment.”

Fortunately, with Castón on the verge of gaining a seat on the Sentencing Commission, he has run into serious opposition. In a letter to Mendelson, Michael Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, objected to the nomination. He warned that Castón would likely advocate for lesser sentencing ranges that would make it even harder for prosecutors to secure prison time for people convicted of firearm violations in the nation’s capital.

Castón responded, Who me? “I’m being caught up in a political fight and I’m being used as a political pawn when this is my life,” he complained. Actually, it isn’t his life that’s at stake — that was the 18-year-old he killed in the parking lot — it’s just Castón’s ambition. And this isn’t “a political fight.” It’s a policy fight over criminal justice policy, a matter of life and death.

But I guess even killers get to play the victim card these days.

Castón protests, “I am going to apply sound judgment based on the facts that are presented to me, without being influenced by any outside parties.” “It is not fair to put me in a box simply because I was a formerly justice-involved individual,” he adds. “That is not fair.”

"A formerly justice-involved individual”? In his case, that’s a euphemism for “convicted murderer.”

But is it unfair to put Castón in the pro-leniency for felons “box” just because he served 27 years for homicide? No, for two reasons.

First, it’s more than reasonable to assume that a murderer who spent that much time behind bars will be sympathetic to other felons facing long sentences. That’s just common sense.

But second, Castón put himself in the pro-leniency box. He says his years in prison give him a unique understanding of the impacts of sentences. That’s basically an admission that he disfavors long sentences.

Furthermore, he says “if confirmed, I would be a fierce advocate for sentences that balance accountability, public well-being and human dignity.” Clearly, “public well-being” is not his paramount concern. It’s just one of several factors to be weighed in the sentencing process, another of which is the “human dignity” of felons.

The city council’s paramount concern should be keeping killers off the street. The “dignity” of the killers shouldn’t factor in at all.

Castón also says, “I believe in reaching individuals who, unfortunately in the community I came from, never had a chance.” So again, he plays the victims card.

This is more evidence of a pro-criminal mindset. Plainly, Castón’s takeaway from his experience as a “justice-involved individual” is that he, and other criminals from neighborhoods like his, are victims of circumstances with only limited responsibility — if that much — for their criminal behavior.

It may well be that Castón “never had a chance” to receive a good education in D.C.’s awful schools or to feel safe in its crime-infested neighborhoods. But he had a chance not to kill. Most of those from the “community he came from” did not murder anyone.

It’s no accident that Castón is vigorously supported by The Sentencing Project. This is a group that wants to “minimize imprisonment.” And according to the Post, Castón has advocated for “restorative justice” and prison reform, and has performed consulting and other work for the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates against “mass incarceration.”

Castón supporters on the council say it’s important to have a member of the Sentencing Commission who has served a sentence. I don’t see why. Do we need a convicted terrorist to serve on a committee trying to counter terrorism?

But if the council must have a criminal as its voting representative on the Commission, it should select one who (1) isn’t a murderer, (2) isn’t known to be an advocate of lenient sentencing, and (3) doesn’t shift the blame for criminality to D.C.’s neighborhoods.

Fortunately, the objection of the U.S. Attorney caused the city council to delay the vote on Castón’s appointment. But I get the impression from this report by the Post that Castón is likely to gain the appointment eventually.

2023 was a bad year for public safety in Washington, D.C. 2024 might well be an even worse

one.