Bragg’s carceral exception: The Manhattan DA, who says he wants to reserve jail and prison for the most violent criminals, has an odd carveout

There’s one more thing about Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s policy memo that’s been bugging us. It may not at first glance seem to matter as much as his arguably going easy on some armed robbers or effectively ruling out prison for many violent offenders, but it’s revealing nonetheless.

Bragg, who says he believes in focusing prosecutorial resources on violent crime and “reserving incarceration for matters involving significant harm,” makes a convenient exception for people charged with public corruption (as well as some white-collar financial crimes). On what grounds does he consider this category of nonviolent offenders better candidates for prison than, say, people who rob grandmas on the street or drive while intoxicated or otherwise hurt their neighbors? The only honest answer is politics.

Bragg’s memo creates a “presumption of pre-trial non-incarceration for every case,” with the following narrow exceptions: “those with charges of homicide or the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument causes serious physical injury, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, domestic violence felonies or charges of PL § 215.50, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law.”

“Sesame Street” had a game: One of these things is not like the others. The DA (allowing for his rules to be overridden in “extraordinary circumstances”) only wants to lock up those accused of the most brutal crimes, to the extent that he exempts from his list many who commit serious street violence. Yet at the very same time, he is fine imprisoning a small category of nonviolent offenders.

The same out-of-character enthusiasm for incarcerating a special subset of nonviolent offenders applies after a guilty verdict or plea, where Bragg only wants prison time for people who do awful bodily harm — and those guilty of public corruption or major economic crimes.

We’re more than fine with sending Shelly Silver or Dean Skelos or Malcolm Smith (who Bragg prosecuted in the federal system) upstate for years for ripping off the public fisc, but why is Bragg, who says as a matter of principle that incarceration should be “a matter of last resort”?