OAKLAND, Calif. (Diya TV) — Alameda County District Attorney candidates Pamela Price and Gopal Krishan delivered a sharp and revealing debate moderated by Diya TV’s Ravi Kapur and KQED’s Alex Hall at Cal State East Bay, laying out two fundamentally different visions for public safety, prosecution, and the role of the district attorney’s office.
Price opened with a deeply personal account of her life, describing experiences with juvenile incarceration, domestic violence, and sexual harassment as shaping her approach to justice. “I am uniquely qualified… I’m a survivor of juvenile incarceration, sexual assault, domestic violence, and vindictive prosecution,” she said. She pointed to her legal career and tenure in office as proof of her qualifications, emphasizing reforms, victim services, and financial outcomes. She said her administration processed cases at a higher rate than her predecessor, secured more than $20 million in judgments, and helped save California taxpayers over $234 million annually through re-sentencing efforts, while also expanding staffing and victim support.
Krishan, a private practice attorney and first-time candidate, positioned himself as an outsider focused on everyday residents. “The public wants justice, public safety, accountability, transparency — which is missing,” he said. He described his journey as an immigrant from India and his work representing families and small businesses, arguing that his experience gives him a clearer understanding of how crime impacts people on a daily basis. He emphasized that many of his clients struggle with theft and instability, saying even a single incident can shut down a business.
The candidates clashed early over the fundamental role of the district attorney. Price described the position as broader than prosecution alone, saying, “The district attorney is a minister of justice.” Krishan pushed back directly, arguing, “The primary job of the district attorney is to prosecute crime,” warning that redefining the role risks weakening accountability.
Public safety and crime policy remained at the center of the debate. Krishan repeatedly stressed the need for stronger enforcement and consequences, saying, “If you do bad stuff, there are consequences. There is no exception.” He argued that consistent prosecution and clear penalties are necessary to deter repeat offenses. Price countered with a more balanced approach, saying, “Safety and justice go together… we always have to seek a balance,” while highlighting her administration’s work on gun violence reduction, organized retail theft, and partnerships with law enforcement and community organizations.
On juvenile justice, both candidates agreed that not all cases should be treated the same, but their approaches diverged sharply. Price emphasized rehabilitation and developmental science, saying, “Holding a 15-year-old to the same standard as an adult is absolutely ridiculous.” Krishan argued that accountability must come first in serious cases, stating, “If you are making a choice to join a gang… they should be prosecuted as an adult.”
The issue of transparency also drew contrasting responses. Krishan criticized the current system as opaque, saying, “The district attorney office is doing everything almost behind closed doors,” and proposed a public dashboard to track cases and policies. Price responded that her administration had already implemented such tools, noting, “We created a public dashboard… to provide detailed information on cases,” along with regular press briefings and public updates.
On repeat offenders and mental health, Price emphasized intervention and support systems, arguing, “We have to partner with organizations that provide mental health resources… to prevent recidivism.” Krishan rejected that framing, stating, “The district attorney office is not a social worker… the job is to enforce the law,” while acknowledging limited exceptions for proven mental health cases.
The debate also touched on federal enforcement and immigration. Price took a firm stance on accountability, saying, “No one is above the law… you do not get to kidnap our residents,” arguing that local prosecutors must challenge federal overreach when laws are violated. Krishan agreed that prosecution is appropriate when laws are broken but said the district attorney’s role is more limited in real-time enforcement situations.
As the discussion turned to office management and leadership, Price defended her hiring and reforms, saying her administration brought in experienced prosecutors and diversified the office while addressing long-standing structural issues. Krishan emphasized his management background overseeing large legal teams and argued that better pay, workplace conditions, and recognition are key to retaining staff.
In closing, Krishan framed the election as a call for change and civic participation, urging voters to take action. “If you don’t use that power, you lose that power… go and vote,” he said. Price, meanwhile, tied her campaign to broader themes of justice and civil rights, concluding, “Justice is in my DNA,” as she emphasized her focus on fairness, safety, and continued reform.
The debate underscored a clear choice for Alameda County voters, with Price advocating for a reform-oriented, system-wide approach to justice, and Krishan calling for stricter enforcement and accountability, setting the stage for a closely watched race over the future direction of the county’s justice system.
Ursula Jones Dickson, Alameda County’s interim District Attorney, declined to participate in this event organized by Project Rebound.
