That assumes that they are actually convicted and put in jail. The DA doesn’t believe that putting people in jail is effective at reducing crime, and so just doesn’t.

The DA you are referring to was removed from office five months ago and replaced by attorneys who quit his office in disgust and led the effort to recall him.

SF still has a lot of work to do but Chessa Boudin is no longer running the SF DA's office.

s/doesn’t/didn’t/g

And we go back to "how about you just enforce the law, catch people breaking it and put them in jail"

how does the cost of this compare with say UBI? bearing in mind there's a cost to illegal/legalized civil forfeiture theft, or caging more people, as well

Are you laboring under the delusion that these same criminals wouldn't happily pocket the UBI in between shoplifting raids for which they face almost no consequences?

Obviously, if UBI is implemented, laws would still need to be enforced.

got a source for calling me (or that) delusional?

Category error: the claim was that an idea is delusional, not a person.

how is this helpful? it's not even correct

You’re making the error in belief that criminals primarily commit crime out of necessity, rather than out of inculcated behavioral habit. At least in the US, most crimes are committed by people who were brought up from a young age in a culture of criminality. There is no ethical or moral dilemma on the part of the criminal, their behavior is fully in line with the social mores of their cultural upbringing.

The folks running in shoplifting and robbery gangs are not stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children, criminality is their profession.

I didn’t say that or theorize motivations but I do see research finding strong negative correlations between violent crime and minimum incomes

> I do see research finding strong negative correlations between violent crime and minimum incomes

Yes, poverty and crime do correlate strongly. Although be careful about conflating violent crime and property crime with each other.

That said, correlation is not causation. There is likely /some/ causative element between poverty and crime, but it is not absolute, rather poverty is also strongly correlated with other non-criminal behaviors that both lead to poverty and lead to crime. There is definitely a cultural element in wealthy countries to generational poverty, just as there is a cultural element to criminality.

If we can break that cycle for people, it benefits society as a whole, and I think it's worth investing what we can as a society into doing so, however current research certainly doesn't support deferment of responsibility for criminality because of poverty.

I think the rest of the developed world provides good evidence that you can punish people for crimes without abusing civil asset forfeiture. It's pretty bad-faith to conflate the two.

We’re talking about America where it is part of policing by policy and norm

> where it is part of policing by policy and norm

Except that's just not true. The US has thousands of mostly independent police departments. Some use civil asset forfeiture (fewer, now that the supreme court has stepped in). Many don't.

What a small town in Alabama does has no connection with what the SFPD does.

sfpd seize.