By 2009 Venezuela had already seen explosive amounts of crime and other ill effects of Chavismo--by neglect and absence of more normative policies, if not a direct consequence of the policies themselves. And Chavez had already revealed himself to have an amoral personality much like Donald Trump, one whose primary ambition was self aggrandizement. IMO the only way one could defend Chavez at that point (and almost nobody in the international arena did, including most European and American Socialists) was to be a true Marxist ideologue.

Why does Boudin maintain such exceptionally lenient policies wrt property crime, even more than those proposed in other cities, and even when suspects are multiple repeat, even professional offenders? Given that Boudin seems highly intelligent and sincere, I must conclude it's because he rejects on principal the salient effects of private property rights. Which isn't to say he would reject them outright in all cases, but that he sees private property rights principally as a tool of oppression, and so has no compunction jettisoning them if he feels that the harm done to minority communities in defending those rights outweighs the risk of capitalists walking away with their ball. Which also is pretty much the only way one could have honestly--albeit naively--defended Chavez.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view, at least intellectually. But I'm nowhere arrogant enough to believe anything good would come of imposing such radicals views. And as someone with a legal education, I think it's particularly unethical of him to use his particular office to impose such views. There are few schools of thought, Marxism and offshoots being the most well known, that believe such reforms can be effective without deep and abiding support within the broader society. Boudin is a modern day American revolutionary, and not necessarily in a good way IMNSHO. Our politics is already far too extremist, and only getting worse.

I recognize that he comes from a family that espouses similar beliefs. (Not just his parents, but his guardians and their circle of friends as well.) But I see no reason to speak to that--his own expressed views, personal and as an office holder, far more directly reflect his thinking.