The first public debate on the race for the District Prosecutor in Philadelphia did not concern much kindness. What began as a tense conversation between two lawyers ended with a mixed scream and one candidate who told the other to keep his wife’s name from his mouth.
The District Prosecutor in Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, the progressive city prosecutor and his democratic pretender, former judge Patrick Dugan, he personally faced and in front of the audience for the first time on Tuesday evening during the community forum in Western Philadelphia.
They bowed for their records, and Dugan presents Krasner as an incompetent rascal, and Krasner suggests that Dugan is a conservative who does not believe in his mission of reforms.
At one warm moment, the District Prosecutor said that Dugan should condemn the President of the Republican Donald Trump – and the indignant Dugan undertook. At a different moment, Krasner attacked Dugan during a decaded case, in which the judge acquitted a police officer accused of assaulting a woman on the parade in Puerto Rico, saying that he should withdraw because he is married to a police officer.
So if there were any illusions that the campaign would start with a warm dialogue, they were quickly broken up. Gloves have dropped and there was really no warfare.
»Read more: Trump, Elon Musk and Philly are wild cards in this year’s race
The two-hour event, organized by a non-profit coalition of human rights, gave the tone the next two months when the candidates throw away the basic election on May 20. Voters will decide whether they want to give Krasner, the national leader of the prosecutor’s prosecutor’s movement, the third term, whether they will go in a different way with Dugan, who presents himself as a less ideological alternative.
Here are four from the first of many meetings between the candidates.
1. Dugan strongly condemned Trump – at the request of the Krasner
Krasner, who frames his campaign around being a local foil for the president, has repeatedly tried to connect Dugan with republicans.
Da described another judge who was critical of his office as “right -wing”, saying that “he is still attacked by [judges] who basically does not believe in our missions “and suggests that there was Dugan among them. Krasner said that the Republicans support the Dugan Run and signed petitions to get to vote.
»Read more: No Republican is running for Philadelphia this year
At the most warm moment of the night Krasner told Dugan that he should condemn Trump, “so all people in the northeast can see it.” (North -east Philadelphia, from which Dugan comes from, has the greatest concentration of people who voted for Trump in the mostly democratic city).
The crowd sapped. Dugan got up from the chair.
“Are you kidding? Do you think I’m a Trumper? ” He said. “I categorically condemn Donald Trump and his policy. The guy is a nut. What I mean. But wait a moment. We don’t run against Donald Trump. We run against each other. “
The moderator reminded the audience that this is the main one and that both candidates are democrats.
Krasner said after the event that he commented on north-eastern Philadelphia, because some districts are “pro-trumpeous, and I would be curious whether his declaration here is the same declaration in these rooms.”
2. Dugan’s Bois has become clearly focused
Until now, there was not much public campaign, so the tone that Dugan would do was unclear. Is he described as a more elderly school candidate for the right and order, or will he try to find the middle ground between the progressive and difficult crime?
On Tuesday it was the latter.
Dugan said that he would retain some of the reforms of the Krasner and even strengthen them, including a unit of integrity of belief that reviews closed matters and work to dismiss the innocent. Krasner caused the work of the purification office over 50 people the central goal of its administration.
Instead, Dugan was critical of Krasner as a leader, saying that he was not working well with other agencies. And Dugan formulated his own positions in the main political issues as more malleable.
For example, Krasner opposes the death penalty. Dugan said that he would generally not look for the death penalty, but he left the door open in cases such as mass shootings. While Pennsylvania has a provision regarding the death penalty, there has been a moratorium for executions under the rule of subsequent democratic governors for a decade.
At a different moment, they were both asked for cash deposit, i.e. when the accused have to pay money for release from prison and recover money if they return to court. Krasner has long been opposing the practice he repeated and said that it cannot be eliminated without state legislation. Dugan stopped saying that he was opposed to cash deposit, but said he was supporting reforms.
3. Both candidates have their weaknesses
Dugan sometimes fought for the landing of blows. His answers to questions often twisted into weeds and assumed that over 100 people in the audience knew the secrets of a complicated justice system in criminal matters in the city.
At some point, Dugan tried to attack the Krasner regarding his office, which directs low -level criminals to rehabilitation instead of prison. Dugan said that he did not agree with the recent testimonies, which Krasner gave to the city council about one of these programs, but did not describe what the program was doing. The moderator had to jump and explain.
Part of the problem could be the forum format – the candidates were asked to describe their positions in elaborate problems within a minute or shorter.
»Read more: Like Patrick Dugan, he collected more money than Larry Krasner last year and what it means for the Philly da 2025 race
Meanwhile, Krasner may have the opposite problem. The two -time District Prosecutor has been advertising his achievements for years and has a professor -quality that can read as confidence in supporters and selfish against others.
At some point, Krasner mocked a slight detail in the question of murder. On the other hand, it seemed annoyed by a critical question about dealing with juvenile matters, starting the answer with the saying: “UM, ok. I will ask everyone to listen carefully.”
And Krasner began its opening statement using a modified version of the quote apparently from Hillary Clinton About her husband’s political rivals: “I always wonder what part of the 90s did not like, peace or prosperity?”
Krasner’s version: “I have a question for you,” he said to the room. “Which part you don’t like? Safety or freedom? “
4. One case will probably appear in connection with the campaign
It did not appear only in the final statements, but one case, which Dugan supervised in 2013, caused one of the strongest answers of the night and will probably appear on the campaign trail.
When he summarized the arguments, Krasner attacked Dugan for the acquittal of the police lieutenant in Philadelphia Jonathan Josey, who was accused of assaulting a woman’s hit in Puerto Rican in the city in an incident that was caught in a video. Dugan, who presided over the process of irreplaceable, at that time called the video “disturbing”, but said that it was not enough to convict Josey.
Dugan faced criticism that he did not withdraw from the case, while his wife, Nancy Farrell Dugan, was at the police. Apparently she was in the courtroom during the trial.
“Why don’t you look at the video from Josey’s case?” Krasner asked the audience on Tuesday. “The one who was settled by this judge with his wife, policeman, in the room.”
Dugan cut him off: “Do not put my wife’s name in your mouth, a young man.”
Krasner returned: “Do not put it in the courtroom when you decide on clay innocence.”
