If the reports are accurate, New Yorkers should be asking a very simple question: what message is Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani trying to send by surrounding himself with a slate of anti-police activists and, allegedly, appointing a convicted armed robber who served seven years as a criminal-justice advisor? Calling this “bold” or “courageous” ignores the obvious reality that optics and judgment matter in public office — and that some choices simply beg for scrutiny rather than applause.
Elected officials are entitled to their beliefs about reform. They are also accountable for who they empower to shape policy that affects everyone’s safety. There are two reasonable, competing considerations here: the value of lived experience in shaping criminal-justice reform, and the need for credibility and public confidence in those who influence public-safety policy. The question is whether those considerations have been balanced — and right now it looks like balance has been thrown out the window.
Start with the simplest point: appointing an advisor with a violent criminal record to advise on criminal-justice policy is bound to generate skepticism. Whether one believes in second chances or not, there is a difference between hiring formerly incarcerated people with expertise in reentry or community support, and putting someone who committed armed robbery — a violent offense that directly threatened citizens’ safety — in a role advising on policing and public safety. For many New Yorkers, especially victims of crime and their families, this is not abstract. It is personal, painful, and disorienting. Public officials who ignore that reality risk alienating the very communities they claim to serve…