So, as someone who (1) wanted Krasner to win, obvs, yet (2) is finishing up something on what the homicide spike means for reform, I think this take on these sorts of pieces is a bit harsh.
They were raising valid questions--and ones last night didn't decisively answer.
I mean, the status quo IS pushing back. I say that not because I think it is somehow the natural order of things. I fight the status quo every day.
But it IS trying to capitalize on the homicide spike and Covid fears, and it is having some--some--successes.
NYC is about the flood the subway with cops, and the frontrunner for mayor is an ex-police captain who wants to bring back stop and frisk.
Philly reelected (yeah yeah) Krasner in a landslide, and Pittsburgh will have a progressive mayor.
It's complicated!
The progressive prosecutor movement is five years old. Krasner is, what... the third major progressive to date to face a re-election primary. We don't have 538-level polling for city races. It was genuinely unclear what the outcome would be--even if a win was likely, how big?
Now, yes, object to the critics arguing the prog DA movement is some safe white-person thing. It's always been clear that support for prog DAs come from the most-impacted communities.
But those communities have complicated and conflicted views on policing! They aren't monoliths.
Maybe some of the media were really trying to push things back to the old days. It certainly feels like that is the default instinct sometimes.
But I was genuinely concerned about how things would play out too. Now we know. Sort of. For one city. That's good!
But, I mean, this is STILL the homepage for The Appeal, right now. This was what it was last night. The Appeal isn't pushing for the status quo. But it was concerned too. As it should have been!
This is relatively unexplored territory. And US punitive instincts are strong.
It was always going to be that the most impacted areas would vote for Krasner. But were they motivated enough after Krasner's mixed first term to get out enough to overcome the FOP's mobilization efforts?
Turns out "hell yes." But... were ppl REALLY SURE at 6 pm last night (no).
And as I've said, still lots of reasons to be concerned, esp at the state level, and esp in places where state leges seem eager to tie the hands of more-Dem cities.
Why? Because of blowback.
Maybe Krasner was the wrong guy to make that arg around. But it's a real point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Saw this in Queens, too: Cabán did well where violence was high.
I’m about to try to get an RA to gather the data for Chicago in 2016, 2020, Boston, StL, etc Bet the pattern holds: more support for progressives in higher-impact nbhds.
Now, things looks MUCH worse at the state level, where crime policy is far more symbolic some impacted communities have far lesser voice: theappeal.org/defund-the-pol…
But it is VITAL to emphasize WHO is opposing the reformers. It’s the LESS-impacted.
Adding a new section to my crim class, and feel like this may be THE most under-appreciated fact abt the crim legal system: just HOW many cases drop out of it.
Half of crimes don't get reported. Half of THOSE don't get arrested. Maybe 5% of crimes --> prison in the end?
These are rough estimates, merging numbers from not-exactly-comparable datasets.
And yes, much of that data is old. It's the most up to date, but... yeah.
Still, even if off by a factor of 2 (weakest point is the arrest-to-prosecutor part)? There's a LOT of attrition.
The findings have ambiguous political implications.
Tough-on-crime types can look at it and say "man, imagine how much better still things could be if we shored this up."
My take? Non-crim legal system ... things ... are likely what constrain behavior the most.
State officials can't preempt local elections. If cities elect progressive mayors and counties progressive DAs, a deep-red state lege can't change that
But they can (and are!) impose rules abt police funding, and they can (and are!) give state AGs more power over local cases.
PA is actually a good example of this. Even with a Dem governor, a chaotic end-of-session bill-passing spree allowed Philly's lone GOP state rep to slip in a provision giving the state AG the right to handle all gun cases... but just from Philly. A direct shot at Krasner.
It’s like the “million dollar blocks” claim. Equally wrong for the same reason, but so intuitively appealing that I think it is basically invulnerable.
So we’ll cut prisons, and not see the savings, and not get why (happened to a program in IN that made EXACTLY this error).
In short: $60,000 is the AVERAGE cost.
But 2/3 of that cost, if not more, if wages. Then some is heating and cleaning and other fixed costs.
So release 1, or 10, or maybe even 1,000, and savings will be <<< $60,000 per. Maybe $10,000, maybe less.
A lot of anti-prison rhetoric starts at “prison has entirely negative effects.”
And it’s true that studies increasingly indicate that the effects are, on net, much weaker than proponents suggest.
But some ppl are imminently dangerous. Removing them likely has some gains.
But that does not mean prison is the EFFECTIVE way to do this. It doesn’t mean it’s the MORAL way to do this. None of this accounts for how we ignore the social costs of how we’ve done it.
But assuming these results replicate, they’re useful to have.
Already we see states and the Feds trying to figure out how to push protesting behavior into something far worse.
We are already arresting and charging the insurgents. We don’t need new laws to get them.
“But what about investigations?”
It’s worth noting that the PATRIOT Act created a special “sneak and peek” warrant to target terrorism… which has been used almost entirely to go after routine drug cases.