In 1971, a man out of prison on furlough shot and killed a police officer. In 1972, another person on furlough in the same state committed another murder.
Law enforcement demanded the program be ended. The governor refused.
Who was this gov? Noted progressive… Ronald Reagan.
The politics of punishment are not some immutable thing. They have changed. They will change again. They are changing, because activists on the street are pushing and agitating and knocking on doors. Because the human cost of the status quo grows worse and worse every day.
It’s easy to tell a static story, where the politics of now is the politics of tomorrow.
But that ignores the very hard, real, and often ignored-by-major-papers work being done to change those politics.
And such takes are not Sagely Objective. They REINFORCE that status quo.
Maybe the spike in homicides—NOT VIOLENCE OVERALL, but one major category of it—will produce a backlash at every level of government, from city to county to state.
But it is NOT the foregone inevitable trend so many seem to think it is.
If Reagan is to your left, hmmm.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s also keeps quoting ppl for oblique refs to “no consequences”—which is obviously made as a dig at Boudin but really seems like a critique of the SFOD. Or Walgreens refusing to hire security.
Also, the article just takes law enforcement’s word that it is theft gangs and property crime reform, w no data.
This has to stop. Law enforcement lies all the time. George Floyd had a medical issue, and look at how they kept misrepresenting bail reform in NY.
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.
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.
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.