3 ms·

I agree the most appropriate solution to this particular aspect of the problem is to replace the DA. The recall is actually scheduled for next month, but the ci

by wahern 4y ago

I agree the most appropriate solution to this particular aspect of the problem is to replace the DA. The recall is actually scheduled for next month, but the city attorney initially sought these injunctions over 18 months ago. I was addressing what seemed like a point of confusion regarding the roles of the district attorney and city attorney, and providing some context regarding how things are playing out. I don't think any official in the city wants to bring back 1980's LA-style gang injunctions. But the district attorney is an elected, independent office whose policies are exacerbating an already extreme situation. He simply will not budge, and the mayor believes it would be counterproductive to use the city's purse strings to "punish" the office financially. While Boudin can't be faulted for all the contributive policy problems, over 1300 people have died from drug overdoses over the past two years (his tenure began January 2020) and the rate is increasing. It's a humanitarian crisis with a legitimately astonishing body count which city hall is trying to get a handle on despite the Board of Supervisors' political paralysis and denial, and the District Attorney's counterproductive, ideologically extreme policies. It's a rare, extreme situation where it's not hyperbole to say that practical matters of life-and-death are bumping up against abstract principles. And it should go without saying that it's not helpful to point out that "the city" (as an abstract entity) is reaping what it sowed. The city is slowly coming to that realization, and unwinding those horrible policies to the extent it can will take time, especially in the context of democratic governance, while in the meantime the body count is accelerating. In such situations it's not uncommon for the law to give some temporary allowance for dealing with exigent, extreme situations with clear outcomes that are undeniably horrible (i.e. it's not a matter of, say, racking up a monetary debt for bad finances, or losing a few prosecutions--we're talking daily deaths). And in that sense the strategy of seeking injunctions isn't as objectionable as it might seem on its face. We should be careful about applying a national policy lens on a very local matter. The folly and hubris of applying abstract, nationally-framed narratives to local matters is part of how city ended up in the situation it has.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I agree the most appropriate solution to this particular aspect of the problem is to replace the DA. The recall is actually scheduled for next month, but the city attorney initially sought these injunctions over 18 months ago Irrespective of timeline, “we don't like the way the elected prosecutor is doing his job” does not justify “so we are going to deny people their rights without due process as an end run around the criminal justice system.” > it's not uncommon for the law to give some temporary allowance for dealing with exigent, extreme situations There is no “exigent, extreme citcumstance” without clear legal process that doesn't involve ignoring people's due process rights. The California DoJ has supervisory authority over all criminal prosecution in the State and may intervene, positively or negative, in any criminal matter. That is the course of remedy for a crisis attributed to defective prosecutorial decisions, not imposing broad loss of liberty on the basis of supposed crimes without criminal process. > We should be careful about applying a national policy lens on a very local matter The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” that is inapplicable to “very local matters”.
- wahern 4y ago
  > The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” that is inapplicable to “very local matters”. Arguably these injunctions aren't too different from spousal abuse or harassment restraining orders, ignoring some technical legal issues regarding scope and cognizable claim. There is process--whether it's "due process" is the question. Certainly there seems to be greater due process than gang injunctions, which are constitutional under current Supreme Court precedent, as the requested injunctions were on named individuals with a history of drug dealing that would need to be satisfactorily shown in court. Compare to gang injunctions, which AFAIU merely required a showing that a particular person was in an enjoined gang. From opinion synopses, the injunctions seem to have been rejected primarily because of their scope--geographic area encompassing important regional government services, and excessive duration. The appellate opinion, contrasting with the trial court, says this specifically--"we are not prepared to hold that a stay-away order could never be a potential remedy...." I won't dispute that as an end-run around the DA (i.e. but-for the DA, everybody agrees the proper course of action would be to seek an injunction specifically as part of conviction), it's barely defensible, if at all. But the fact the city is seeking them is not evidence of a fundamental shift in San Francisco city official's criminal justice reform efforts writ large. Yet that's exactly what Boudin will claim and is claiming as part of his campaign to defeat recall--that everybody but him is committed to meaningful reform, and all those opposing him (especially those supporting his recall) wish to return to the tough-on-crime policies of decades past.

by wahern 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I agree the most appropriate solution to this particular aspect of the problem is to replace the DA. The recall is actually scheduled for next month, but the city attorney initially sought these injunctions over 18 months ago Irrespective of timeline, “we don't like the way the elected prosecutor is doing his job” does not justify “so we are going to deny people their rights without due process as an end run around the criminal justice system.” > it's not uncommon for the law to give some temporary allowance for dealing with exigent, extreme situations There is no “exigent, extreme citcumstance” without clear legal process that doesn't involve ignoring people's due process rights. The California DoJ has supervisory authority over all criminal prosecution in the State and may intervene, positively or negative, in any criminal matter. That is the course of remedy for a crisis attributed to defective prosecutorial decisions, not imposing broad loss of liberty on the basis of supposed crimes without criminal process. > We should be careful about applying a national policy lens on a very local matter The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” that is inapplicable to “very local matters”.

wahern 4y ago
> The prohibition on public officials denying people rights without due process required by the federal and state constitution isn't a “national policy lens” that is inapplicable to “very local matters”. Arguably these injunctions aren't too different from spousal abuse or harassment restraining orders, ignoring some technical legal issues regarding scope and cognizable claim. There is process--whether it's "due process" is the question. Certainly there seems to be greater due process than gang injunctions, which are constitutional under current Supreme Court precedent, as the requested injunctions were on named individuals with a history of drug dealing that would need to be satisfactorily shown in court. Compare to gang injunctions, which AFAIU merely required a showing that a particular person was in an enjoined gang. From opinion synopses, the injunctions seem to have been rejected primarily because of their scope--geographic area encompassing important regional government services, and excessive duration. The appellate opinion, contrasting with the trial court, says this specifically--"we are not prepared to hold that a stay-away order could never be a potential remedy...." I won't dispute that as an end-run around the DA (i.e. but-for the DA, everybody agrees the proper course of action would be to seek an injunction specifically as part of conviction), it's barely defensible, if at all. But the fact the city is seeking them is not evidence of a fundamental shift in San Francisco city official's criminal justice reform efforts writ large. Yet that's exactly what Boudin will claim and is claiming as part of his campaign to defeat recall--that everybody but him is committed to meaningful reform, and all those opposing him (especially those supporting his recall) wish to return to the tough-on-crime policies of decades past.