3 ms·

Normally I would think your point a strong one, and that the police should just do their job regardless. But it's difficult to exaggerate how radical are Boudin

by wahern 6y ago

Normally I would think your point a strong one, and that the police should just do their job regardless. But it's difficult to exaggerate how radical are Boudin's policies.[1] It's so bad that I think the police are justified in this case in letting some problems openly fester so Boudin can take the heat now, rather than playing a game of musical chairs, complicate the story, and give Boudin plausible deniability. I mean, it's an inevitable consequence of his policies, so why bother trying to thwart the "will of the people"? This is especially true when the police could be using those resources to patrol residential neighborhoods in an effort to try to prevent some residential burglaries, which are also sky rocketing. The interesting thing is that Boudin only won because of instant run-off voting. Both the moderate and conservative candidates won more votes, but not 50%, and Boudin had the name recognition to be many people's second choice. [1] It's not just the policies of trying to avoid unnecessary and ineffective incarceration, it's that Boudin offers zero alternatives. For example, to justify failing to press felony charges for a violent burglary against a repeat violent offender who would a week later kill two people, Boudin explained that his office had forwarded the matter to the person's parole officer. But did they ever follow up to see if the parole officer had decided to revoke parole or attempt to reign in their parolee at all? AFAIK, no, the DA's office simple threw the matter over the fence. It just boggles the mind. Boudin's policies are simply a dereliction of his responsibilities, pure and simple. It's a real-life Batman movie where a corrupt or inept DA simply stops enforcing the law. Or like if the Joker was elected the DA. It really puts the cops in a bind. Why bother arresting someone when you know they're going to walk that same day, return to doing exactly the same thing, and with little chance the DA would prosecute? (Zero chance of prosecution for property crimes, mind you.) I mean, in this absurd context such an arrest could be argued to be a form of harassment. And, to reiterate, that's not an exaggerated or hyperbolic characterization of the situation. It's gotten so bad that the police are using Twitter to name and shame some of the more egregious cases (of which there are many), and AFAIK nobody else in city government nor the press is chastising the police for playing political games that in any other context would be unacceptable.

mbgerring 6y ago
Just to be clear here: you’re saying that it’s OK for the police to not arrest criminals or prevent crime, which is their only job, because they dislike the DA. Are you also saying that it’s OK for political opponents of the DA to then use bad outcomes caused by the police, purposefully not doing their jobs in order to sabotage the DA, as a reason to recall the DA? If the police really are standing aside and allowing people to be victimized, and threatening to do it until they get what they want, that sounds a lot like a hostage situation to me, and I don’t think there’s any way to justify that.
- wahern 6y ago
  If you arrest someone for an offense you know they won't be prosecuted for, that's just harassment. It'd be exactly like arresting someone for smoking pot in a jurisdiction where the DA's office has a policy of never pressing pot smoking charges. That's the sort of disproportionately minority-biased policing that even many conservative criminal justice reformers have railed against. Except in this case the DA adheres to a criminal justice theory that is so absurdly radical that their policy is to, e.g., never press serious charges (i.e. charges that potentially come with incarceration) for property crimes because they believe (not entirely unreasonably) the criminal justice system is irredeemably corrupt, property crimes are less harmful to society than the incarceration norms (not nearly as reasonable), and that by taking such a radical approach he might induce structural change elsewhere in the system (notwithstanding that, like in the parolee case, he doesn't actually try to make sure that change is happening). Moreover, robbing people at gun point is a property crime, not the type of violence exception that warrants prosecution and incarceration. That's Boudin. I've never actually heard a meaningful defense of his decisions. At best his small cadre of supporters seem to rely on their faith in his abstract principles to quietly console themselves, including the wife of the famous private investigator recently killed in the street by thieves, whom he was photographing while they robbed someone else.[1] Everybody else in the city, left, right, and center, is basically just slack-jawed. But he's an elected official with independent powers. The process for removal is well underway. I'll eat a hat if the removal fails. FWIW, he seems like a very intelligent person with strong convictions, and while too radical for my tastes, I could respect someone who put in the effort and followup required. He seems to have many of the qualities needed for someone to have any chance of succeeding in that regard.[2] But like conservatives who advocate and practice malign neglect in a misguided attempt to subvert and extinguish the administrative state, his approach is indistinguishable from nihilism, and that's indefensible for somebody entrusted with a public office, particularly the DA's office, which at least in principle is only quasi-political. [1] Of course, since they actually ended up killing someone, Boudin's office is prosecuting them. But when you invite so much risk-free property crime, these sorts of "accidental" physical assaults and murders are inevitable. [2] Though, his credibility is increasingly suspect as he fumbles to explain his office's decisions and square them with facial claims about prosecuting all crimes. It's clear he's begun playing semantic word games. His office may nominally have a policy of prosecuting all property crimes, but if you only require a fine or restitution and take incarceration off the table for failure to meet terms or even to show up to court at all, especially when people are what civil trial lawyers call "judgment proof", the claim has no substance.

by wahern 6y ago

mbgerring 6y ago

Just to be clear here: you’re saying that it’s OK for the police to not arrest criminals or prevent crime, which is their only job, because they dislike the DA. Are you also saying that it’s OK for political opponents of the DA to then use bad outcomes caused by the police, purposefully not doing their jobs in order to sabotage the DA, as a reason to recall the DA? If the police really are standing aside and allowing people to be victimized, and threatening to do it until they get what they want, that sounds a lot like a hostage situation to me, and I don’t think there’s any way to justify that.

wahern 6y ago
If you arrest someone for an offense you know they won't be prosecuted for, that's just harassment. It'd be exactly like arresting someone for smoking pot in a jurisdiction where the DA's office has a policy of never pressing pot smoking charges. That's the sort of disproportionately minority-biased policing that even many conservative criminal justice reformers have railed against. Except in this case the DA adheres to a criminal justice theory that is so absurdly radical that their policy is to, e.g., never press serious charges (i.e. charges that potentially come with incarceration) for property crimes because they believe (not entirely unreasonably) the criminal justice system is irredeemably corrupt, property crimes are less harmful to society than the incarceration norms (not nearly as reasonable), and that by taking such a radical approach he might induce structural change elsewhere in the system (notwithstanding that, like in the parolee case, he doesn't actually try to make sure that change is happening). Moreover, robbing people at gun point is a property crime, not the type of violence exception that warrants prosecution and incarceration. That's Boudin. I've never actually heard a meaningful defense of his decisions. At best his small cadre of supporters seem to rely on their faith in his abstract principles to quietly console themselves, including the wife of the famous private investigator recently killed in the street by thieves, whom he was photographing while they robbed someone else.[1] Everybody else in the city, left, right, and center, is basically just slack-jawed. But he's an elected official with independent powers. The process for removal is well underway. I'll eat a hat if the removal fails. FWIW, he seems like a very intelligent person with strong convictions, and while too radical for my tastes, I could respect someone who put in the effort and followup required. He seems to have many of the qualities needed for someone to have any chance of succeeding in that regard.[2] But like conservatives who advocate and practice malign neglect in a misguided attempt to subvert and extinguish the administrative state, his approach is indistinguishable from nihilism, and that's indefensible for somebody entrusted with a public office, particularly the DA's office, which at least in principle is only quasi-political. [1] Of course, since they actually ended up killing someone, Boudin's office is prosecuting them. But when you invite so much risk-free property crime, these sorts of "accidental" physical assaults and murders are inevitable. [2] Though, his credibility is increasingly suspect as he fumbles to explain his office's decisions and square them with facial claims about prosecuting all crimes. It's clear he's begun playing semantic word games. His office may nominally have a policy of prosecuting all property crimes, but if you only require a fine or restitution and take incarceration off the table for failure to meet terms or even to show up to court at all, especially when people are what civil trial lawyers call "judgment proof", the claim has no substance.