Thread by @SonjaTrauss

If you haven’t already voted, here is my endorsement for DA: @NancyforSFDA

I am finally compelled to make this endorsement after reading the candidates answers to the ACLU questions: sfchronicle.com/local-politics…

Nancy is the only candidate who didn’t answer with word salad.

Before I say any more, “quality of life” lumps several crimes together that I don’t think are similar. It lumps drug dealing and stealing with blocking the sidewalk and offering sex for money. Stealing, in particular, I don’t consider to be a minor crime.

It’s very privledged to be able to say, “oh well it’s only money, no big deal” when your item worth $950 or less is stolen.

$950 is 63.3 hours of work at $15/hour. That’s a week and a half. It could be your whole rent payment, or 3 car payments, or 3 health insurance payments.

Anyway I digress.

When I first met Nancy, it was because of our mutual involvement in the @SFENDC. I googled her, and at the time, the first thing that came up was this:

sfgate.com/bayarea/matier…

As you might imagine, everything about this story endeared me to her immediately.

The issue was that the DA’s office had a number of cases where they found out the evidence was tainted. Yes, the right move is to follow the rules of evidence strictly & feel strongly about it.

Nancy is being portrayed as the tough on crime candidate. I think that is one way of understanding her real orientation -

@NancyforSFDA is the rule following candidate, and that includes rules that guarantee fair process and fair trials for defendants.

Today in the Chronicle, Nancy had the only answer that helped me understand what she was actually going to do:

“Diversions are indeed a tool of a prosecution, as are deferred prosecutions.”

All the other candidates in a hand wavy way are saying “we need to get people social services.”

Ok. You are running for DA (not mayor, or supervisor). How, as the DA, are you going to get people services? What is your plan for THE DAs OFFICE to get people into services?

There’s really only one answer, from the point of view of the DAs office - and that’s what Nancy said - after arrest, put people into Diversion or deferred prosecution programs or deals. Just letting people go doesn’t provide anyone services.

For #2, please vote for Suzy Loftus.

I really appreciated @NancyforSFDA going hard in on Chesa when he said that the DAs office should be giving drunk drivers less harsh sentences. Nancy correctly exclaimed that as a pedestrian (and a mom of a toddler) drunk drivers r v scary.

Suzy Loftus is agreeing with @NancyforSFDA in taking this issue seriously:

sfchronicle.com/crime/article/…

Now this thread is going to explain why @chesaboudin is a fraud.

One of the perceived problems in the DAs office is that there are “too many” people not taking the plea deals that the DA is offering, instead, the defendants opt to take their chances at trial, which is expensive.

The biggest category of people not taking the plea deal offered by the DAs office is people fighting DUI convictions. OBVIOUSLY.

Of all the crimes that the DAs office sees, DUI is the one that is most likely to catch middle class people.

The decision about whether to go to trial or take the deal has to do with the balance between the deal offered, and your ability to go to trial - do you have the resources to hire a lawyer and fight it?

We should always expect, if the DAs office is even remotely treating people fairly by giving similar plea deals to crimes of similar harmfulness, that the crimes of the middle and upper class will wind up more often in the courtroom. Depressing but true.

Looking at this situation, Chesa’s response is that we should be going easier on drunk drivers. He says, the DAs office isn’t giving them attractive deals, forcing them to force the DAs office to waste public resources at a trial.

😳what?😳