Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.: He’s a quick draw with a press release. Credit: Kristyna Wentz-Graff

We usually ignore the antics of Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. — it's not our job to slake his inexhaustible thirst for publicity. Whether it's irresponsibly calling on citizens to arm themselves, bombastic talk radio appearances or his intensely personal feud with County Executive Chris Abele (all the while never acknowledging his own flaws), the sheriff has repeatedly diminished himself before the public.

That said, we have to take notice of letters written this week by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Chief Judge Jeffrey Kremers. They were responding to Clarke's charge that the district attorney and circuit court are "soft on crime" and to Clarke's proposal to suspend plea bargaining and non-prison sentences for all major crimes pending a study of the practices.

Clarke gratuitously hoisted the "soft on crime" flag after the tragic shooting of 10-year-old Sierra Guyton on May 21. The girl was wounded by gunfire during a dispute between two men with long criminal records. There are legitimate questions about why these two men were still on the streets after years of criminal activity. Law enforcement, including Chisholm, Kremers and the police, need to be held accountable in this case and any others like it.

But that charge — soft on crime — is a tired old canard that isn't supported by facts. It's a dodge, an easy, reflexive response that ignores the complicated stew that feeds criminals. A wholesale suspension of plea bargains isn't an answer; it's a political cheap shot in an election year.

As Chisholm pointed out in his letter, suspending these tools would be "legally, ethically and practically irresponsible" — an idea that would clog the courts, the jails and prisons, violate the right to a speedy trial for defendants and drive up costs in the criminal justice system.

Clarke, a former Milwaukee cop, knows all of this, so we presume that his broadside was nothing more than empty rhetoric — as Chisholm suggests, "election-year politics" from the sheriff who will stand for re-election in the Democratic primary in August. Whatever his motivation, rhetoric is all that Clarke has left.

Chisholm noted that Clarke's "agency does not investigate homicides, nor does it have the capacity to do so after long years of neglect at your hands." Chisholm made the same observation about domestic violence cases. He also was critical of Clarke's decision to disband the department's gun and drug investigation and witness protection units, and he noted Clarke's decision to waste resources by having deputies watch private guards check courthouse visitors when they could be doing something more productive. Kremers was equally as pointed in his letter to Clarke, saying the sheriff is frequently uncooperative. Basically, Kremers is saying that Clarke has checked out.

In their letters, Chisholm and Kremers write that they are open to having, as Chisholm put it, a "mutually agreeable outside academic entity come study our practices."

We think such a study might have merit if all parties are serious. As we said, there are legitimate questions that arise when a child is gunned down on a playground. The public deserves answers to those questions, but they must be thoughtful answers, not canned talking points.

We're guessing that Clarke isn't serious in this case because he hardly ever is serious about anything. And he's proven time and again that he isn't thoughtful.

For years, we have hoped that Clarke would grow into the job of sheriff. Now, it appears that he has — by making both himself and the job smaller.