3 ms·

> The mistake these courts are making is thinking that the punishment is meant for the individual committing the crime ONLY. In fact, it is a deterrent for OTHE

by mlyle 5y ago

> The mistake these courts are making is thinking that the punishment is meant for the individual committing the crime ONLY. In fact, it is a deterrent for OTHERS to think twice before attempting a crime. Rulings like this will have a very predictable outcome: drug dealers will read about this or hear about it, and they will proceed to take advantage of it. This isn't a mistake. This was not law before they committed their offense, and it's a very restrictive ban: this is effectively adding more punishment to a crime after the fact. Worse, there was no legislation to support the ban. > This has happened before. One year it was a clean city, then they announced they wouldn't prosecute quality of life crimes like defecating on the street... and the next year you couldn't walk a single block without having to avoid human feces. The amount of short-sightedness in the leadership of that city is astounding! At least don't announce it! Here, the leadership of the city was trying to take action in excess of what the law allowed against these dealers. So who exactly is fucking up here? The leadership of the city?

proc0 5y ago
Yeah, TBH I don't know who to blame here. I assume the leadership is able to do something about it, but perhaps not and there is more at play here.
true_religion 5y ago
I thought the DA said crimes wouldn’t be prosecuted. This may be in excess of civil rights but it’s still. If prosecution or jail time. A charitable view would state: It’s as if the DA is searching for solutions but always lands on the worst possible one which is both illegal and ineffective. The one benefit to this solution is that it reduces the DA case load, which it looks like is the real goal.
- mlyle 5y ago
  In this case, we're mostly talking about drug dealers who have been prosecuted and convicted-- and ultimately released, no longer living in San Francisco. The city attorney (not the DA-- another official who handles civil matters for the city rather than criminal ones) sought to keep these people out of the portions of the city where drug dealing is most endemic. But, this turns out not to be legal-- with no legislative support and with it all being post-conviction, combined with it being large in scope compared to similar civil protective orders.

by mlyle 5y ago

proc0 5y ago

Yeah, TBH I don't know who to blame here. I assume the leadership is able to do something about it, but perhaps not and there is more at play here.

true_religion 5y ago

I thought the DA said crimes wouldn’t be prosecuted. This may be in excess of civil rights but it’s still. If prosecution or jail time. A charitable view would state: It’s as if the DA is searching for solutions but always lands on the worst possible one which is both illegal and ineffective. The one benefit to this solution is that it reduces the DA case load, which it looks like is the real goal.

mlyle 5y ago
In this case, we're mostly talking about drug dealers who have been prosecuted and convicted-- and ultimately released, no longer living in San Francisco. The city attorney (not the DA-- another official who handles civil matters for the city rather than criminal ones) sought to keep these people out of the portions of the city where drug dealing is most endemic. But, this turns out not to be legal-- with no legislative support and with it all being post-conviction, combined with it being large in scope compared to similar civil protective orders.