Jon Cardin Questions Brian Frosh in Final Debate on Failure to Protect Women & Children
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 10, 2014
BALTIMORE, MD – On Monday June 9, 2014, Jon Cardin, Aisha Braveboy, and Brian Frosh participated in the second of two debates for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
At the debate, Jon Cardin, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, strongly criticized Mr. Frosh’s checkered record on issues of protecting women and children, protecting consumer rights and protecting the rights criminal defendants during his tenure as a Maryland State Senator.
In particular, Cardin questioned Frosh on why he forced Mark Klaas, father of a raped and murdered child, to wait 5 and a half hours to testify on behalf of Jessica’s Law (SB413 – 2007), a bill to ban parole for child rapists, after flying in from California just to testify. Cardin stated it was even more questionable that by the time Mr. Klaas testified, Mr. Frosh had left the hearing. Mr. Frosh did not answer this question. He tried to deflect the question by falsely claiming that Cardin also did not vote in favor of this bill. However, Cardin voted for HB4 in 2006 and SB413 in 2007, the year the bill ultimately passed despite Senator Frosh voting “no.”
Cardin went on to criticize Mr. Frosh for voting no on a Task Force to Study Child Abuse and Neglect (SB63 – 2012) and for abstaining on votes to increase the maximum penalty for child rapists (SB 854 – 2010) and a bill to require criminal background checks for employees at daycare centers (SB 211 – 1989). Frosh gave no direct response to any of these charges.
On a separate matter, Cardin criticized Frosh for recently attempting to implement a new bail program for criminal defendants that would have replaced commissioners with computers to decide who gets bail and who stays in jail – some call this “robobail.”
Cardin noted that while other states and jurisdictions use a similar computerized risk assessment system, no state or jurisdiction in the union leaves a defendant’s freedom entirely up to a computer. He called a system that allows a computer to decide your freedom “Orwellian” stating that “there is a reason why no other jurisdiction has computers as its final arbiter.” In response, Frosh stated that his proposal had varied support but failed to discuss the issue of using computers as the final arbiter for a defendant’s freedom. He also mistakenly referred to criminal defendants as “plaintiffs,” a term reserved for civil law.
Finally, when asked about Maryland’s failed healthcare exchange, Cardin re-affirmed his pledge to sue Noridian for the nearly $100 million their breach of contract cost the State. He pointed to Mr. Frosh’s statement to WBAL radio two weeks ago that he would only investigate Noridian if a crime was committed. In that interview, Mr. Frosh stated no crime was committed. At the June 10th debate, Mr. Frosh changed his answer and said he would sue for breach of contract.
Contact: Sarah Hunt, Campaign Coordinator
Tel: (443) 500 - 0179