4 ms·

What do you mean when you say it's "an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue."? Isn't all crime a cultural issue to some extent? What is the purpose of law enforc

by nickff 4y ago

What do you mean when you say it's "an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue."? Isn't all crime a cultural issue to some extent? What is the purpose of law enforcement, and prosecution in your mind?

legitster 4y ago
Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations. Prosecuting criminals who are caught is handled by the DA's office. Simply put, it's not the DA's job to stop crime. So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up).
- nradov 4y ago
  The SF police no longer bother even trying to stop certain crimes because the DA won't prosecute criminals, so it's a waste of police time. Changing the DA could give police an incentive to resume active enforcement.
  - icedistilled 4y ago
    It's strange how every year the police have a new excuse. Prior to Boudin they blamed the change to the $950 felony theft limit ( Texas has $2,500). Now they wore that out they've decided it's Boudin. After the recall what will it be next? Anyway, taking the the cops at their dubious word, assume the DA is terrible. Does it actually make sense to be like "because the DA is terrible, we will also be terrible but you can't criticize us". (Not even getting into the long history of SF policy chronic issues)
    - pandaman 4y ago
      Theft under $950 in California is an infraction i.e. a fine with no jail time. In Texas only the first theft under $100 does not carry time (a second offense can already get jail time even under $100 value). This is why there are organized gangs rushing shops in California and no such thing in Texas.
- nickff 4y ago
  >"Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations." How do you expect police to stop and prevent crime? As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, I don't know what the police could have done to prevent it, short of being everywhere all the time. >"So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up)." I was under the impression that District Attorneys are meant to act as part of a 'feedback system', by disincentivizing crime, protecting the public by imprisoning dangerous people, and providing the opportunity for corrections. I am not sure which, if any role DAs actually accomplish.
- verdverm 4y ago
  The downside to commiting a crime (risk v reward) impacts the decision to do it. This is where the DA and their policies can impact crime. So when you remove much of the punishment, it would be reasonable to expect crime to increase.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    But the feedback is heavily non-trivial. A tiny chance of a huge punishment deters significantly less than a huge chance of a tiny punishment.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      So your point is that the DA can't make a big difference in the chances of punishment?
      - verdverm 4y ago
        The way I read it, the specific policies of the DA can make a difference. My understanding is that the SF DA has deprioritized and eliminated prosecuting smaller crimes, so there is little to no downside for the would be criminal. So then, in this case and theory, the DA has indeed had a big impact on the rise in crime, hence all the hub-bub GP is referring to the idea that getting 30 years vs 25 for murder is very different from getting in trouble for stealing < $1100. In the later, if you could face jail time, you might think twice about stealing from walgreens.
        SilasX 4y ago
        I got that part. I was linking it back to the original discussion, about whether the DA can influence the criminal calculus. Sounds like the DA can.

by nickff 4y ago

What do you mean when you say it's "an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue."? Isn't all crime a cultural issue to some extent? What is the purpose of law enforcement, and prosecution in your mind?

legitster 4y ago

Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations. Prosecuting criminals who are caught is handled by the DA's office. Simply put, it's not the DA's job to stop crime. So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up).

nradov 4y ago
The SF police no longer bother even trying to stop certain crimes because the DA won't prosecute criminals, so it's a waste of police time. Changing the DA could give police an incentive to resume active enforcement.
- icedistilled 4y ago
  It's strange how every year the police have a new excuse. Prior to Boudin they blamed the change to the $950 felony theft limit ( Texas has $2,500). Now they wore that out they've decided it's Boudin. After the recall what will it be next? Anyway, taking the the cops at their dubious word, assume the DA is terrible. Does it actually make sense to be like "because the DA is terrible, we will also be terrible but you can't criticize us". (Not even getting into the long history of SF policy chronic issues)
  - pandaman 4y ago
    Theft under $950 in California is an infraction i.e. a fine with no jail time. In Texas only the first theft under $100 does not carry time (a second offense can already get jail time even under $100 value). This is why there are organized gangs rushing shops in California and no such thing in Texas.
nickff 4y ago
>"Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations." How do you expect police to stop and prevent crime? As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, I don't know what the police could have done to prevent it, short of being everywhere all the time. >"So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up)." I was under the impression that District Attorneys are meant to act as part of a 'feedback system', by disincentivizing crime, protecting the public by imprisoning dangerous people, and providing the opportunity for corrections. I am not sure which, if any role DAs actually accomplish.
verdverm 4y ago
The downside to commiting a crime (risk v reward) impacts the decision to do it. This is where the DA and their policies can impact crime. So when you remove much of the punishment, it would be reasonable to expect crime to increase.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  But the feedback is heavily non-trivial. A tiny chance of a huge punishment deters significantly less than a huge chance of a tiny punishment.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    So your point is that the DA can't make a big difference in the chances of punishment?
    - verdverm 4y ago
      The way I read it, the specific policies of the DA can make a difference. My understanding is that the SF DA has deprioritized and eliminated prosecuting smaller crimes, so there is little to no downside for the would be criminal. So then, in this case and theory, the DA has indeed had a big impact on the rise in crime, hence all the hub-bub GP is referring to the idea that getting 30 years vs 25 for murder is very different from getting in trouble for stealing < $1100. In the later, if you could face jail time, you might think twice about stealing from walgreens.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        I got that part. I was linking it back to the original discussion, about whether the DA can influence the criminal calculus. Sounds like the DA can.