Harris' truancy program was structured similarly to Back on Track. It identified low-level offenses and, whenever possible, tried to connect offenders to city services rather than prosecution.
And it worked. Crime went down, truancy went down, AND no one needed to be locked up.
And it worked. Crime went down, truancy went down, AND no one needed to be locked up.
If your sole argument that all of this was bad was, "well, Harris theoretically COULD HAVE jailed people under this policy," that's an absurd reach.
The bottom line is, she didnt, because the policy worked.
The bottom line is, she didnt, because the policy worked.
I mean, if the standard is there shouldn't even BE a prosecutorial recourse if civil interventions don't work, you're basically saying nothing short of total prison abolition will do.
Which I recognize might really be the position of some left activists, but, sorry, isn't mine.
Which I recognize might really be the position of some left activists, but, sorry, isn't mine.
I mean, I guess you can argue that forfeiture of custody makes more sense as the final resort action than incarceration. But incarceration was the law passed by the legislature; all Harris built was the early-intervention system around it, and that was the part that worked!
