Re:The Privatization of Policing
by wahern on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @08:18AM
(#34230942)
I can't speak to the other examples, but in the case of Boudin it's not that he didn't prosecute, it's that he and his office refused to seek jail time for non-violent property offenses, except (in principal) the leaders of organized criminal rings. Instead such offenders were placed into diversion programs and then promptly forgotten about. Boudin very much liked to tout that his prosecution rates were just as high as his predecessor, and official statistics highlighted the high successful diversion rate--where "success" was extremely dubious, and probably the area where Boudin's office skirted with malfeasance. (The desire to keep a high diversion success rate explains well some high profile instances where the DAs office chose to rely on other state agencies--like a parole office--to take action rather than create a new case file. Diversion also often includes expungement, so in theory the DAs office could have arranged to make it impossible for a diversion to fail by simply choosing not to look into expunged records, which the DA usually can do if they choose, but can just as easily choose not to do if they want plausible deniability.)
This is also a big reason why the police were releasing burglars almost immediately upon booking--if the DA won't seek jail time as a matter of policy, then it's patently unjust (per SF policy even before Boudin) to keep someone in jail until arraignment.
Of course, if there's no threat of jail time, and someone has no assets or income above living wages which a court could seize for restitution, then there's absolutely nothing stopping an incorrigible offender.
These nuances allowed Boudin defenders to claim his opponents were lying or at least wrong about Boudin's policies. And technically that's true--hyperbole got the better of his opponents, who seemed unwilling or incapable of making these distinctions. I fully expect Boudin or a Boudin acolyte to run again in the future and to dissemble and defend these policies. The reality is unfortunately too difficult to properly explain through sound bites, while the abridged version can make these policies seem more reasonable than they actually are.
This is also a big reason why the police were releasing burglars almost immediately upon booking--if the DA won't seek jail time as a matter of policy, then it's patently unjust (per SF policy even before Boudin) to keep someone in jail until arraignment.
Of course, if there's no threat of jail time, and someone has no assets or income above living wages which a court could seize for restitution, then there's absolutely nothing stopping an incorrigible offender.
These nuances allowed Boudin defenders to claim his opponents were lying or at least wrong about Boudin's policies. And technically that's true--hyperbole got the better of his opponents, who seemed unwilling or incapable of making these distinctions. I fully expect Boudin or a Boudin acolyte to run again in the future and to dissemble and defend these policies. The reality is unfortunately too difficult to properly explain through sound bites, while the abridged version can make these policies seem more reasonable than they actually are.