Delusion on San Francisco Crime Will Get You Recalled
Prosecutorial reform is one thing. Chesa Boudin’s incompetence is another.

One thing that's become tiresome, when it comes to 2022 progressive politics, is being told that what you're seeing with your own eyes is not happening: That's not a fire. That's not a crisis. And even if it were a crisis, that's on you; you and your privilege birthed this mess so just pipe down and let the new regime take care of it.
San Francisco voters, by a roughly 60–40 margin, on Tuesday rejected that approach. They passed Yes on H, the measure to recall progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who initially squeaked out a ranked-choice victory in November 2019. Mayor London Breed will appoint a new D.A. to serve until the next general election in 2023.
"The thing about it is, they are always so smug about it," says Tom Wolf, a recovery advocate and former addict, of Boudin and his people's insistence that the police were the problem, that the city should not arrest its way to order, and that voters of good conscience must allow Boudin more time to work on various restorative justice policies—for example, declining to prosecute people dealing fentanyl on United Nations Plaza, in case their immigration status would have them deported to a country where drug cartels would murder them and their mothers.
The above scenario was diagrammed for me several times by Boudin detractors, fed up with the D.A.'s office securing only three drug-dealing convictions in 2021. These people saw Boudin and his supporters as willing to sacrifice San Francisco to ideals that did not make things better for the average person. Boudin's ilk seem to whistle past the uptick in retail theft, the 1,792 accidental overdose deaths from 2019–2021, and the black market drug issues at U.N. Plaza, which I can report is an absolute hell on earth.
Boudin supporters blame the festering at U.N. Plaza on the failure of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to make arrests. "The police are so incompetent and scandal-ridden. They clear less than 9 percent of their cases," Lara Bazelon, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and a Boudin supporter, told me last week. "If you commit a crime in the city, you have a 91 percent chance of just walking away. I feel like the conversation should be over right there."
That was the conversation for a while, with the public supporting Boudin's willingness to root out corruption within the SFPD, efforts to hold officers accountable (including for manslaughter), and the SFPD's slow-rolling of arrests that was causing problems at U.N. Plaza and elsewhere. But by last October, when the petition to recall Boudin received 83,487 signatures (32,162 more than were needed to get it on the ballot), the conversation had changed.
"I feel like we're all part of an experiment and halfway through the experiment, it's not working. I don't want to be part of the experiment anymore," says Josh Steel, one of maybe 100 supporters of Yes on H who crammed into a Tiki bar in the Marina District to watch election returns.
The most intractable problems, to be fair, are not of Boudin's making.
"You can't blame homelessness on him, you can't really blame all of the drug overdoses, but he's complicit," Steel says. "And I just don't think he loves the city like I do and like the people in this room do. Why continue down this path?"
"I've watched an open-air drug market go on where I live and where I work for the past two years, 24 hours a day," says a librarian who declined to give her name. "I've watched people deteriorate. I've had dead bodies picked up off my block. The only thing that's going to change this is that we have a district attorney that starts prosecuting drug dealers and holding them accountable. That is the reason why San Francisco is filthy and that's why there's crime and that's why there are tents everywhere. It's been incredibly painful."
Marie Hurabiell,* who was instrumental in the campaign to recall three progressive San Francisco school board members in February, concurred. "People are so fed up and so angry and they see that he's so incompetent," she says, while admitting voters deserved some blame. "He'd never run for anything before, and we put him in as top cop."
It may have been Boudin's origin story that was so tantalizing for voters—each of his biological and adoptive parents was a member of the radical militant group the Weather Underground. It may have been an appetite for progressivism, whipped up by anti-Trump sentiment and nationwide police misconduct, that had people willing to take a chance. When people are unsatisfied with the status quo, they're willing to take risks on something new. What they don't like is being told that what they want—security, clean streets, a place where their kids can play without stumbling over someone sleeping under the jungle gym—must be sacrificed for a fading utopian ideal.
"In the next two and a half years, you're going to see a massive change in the way San Francisco operates. It's going to become far more sane and far more rational," Hurabiell hopes. She named a shortlist of people she'd like to see in the D.A.'s job, including Brooke Jenkins (who left the D.A.'s office in 2021 and who spent part of Tuesday night telling a phalanx of media that it was not her intention to seek the position) and Thomas Ostly, a mountain of a dude who at 9 p.m. was leaning against the bar. Would Ostly, whom Boudin fired immediately upon taking office, be the city's next D.A.?
"I can't answer that," says Ostly, explaining that "during the seven years I was a prosecutor, I never had a case fall apart." He claimed Boudin's contention that "for the past few years that SFPD is somehow dropping the ball, that's simply not true." Contrary to the idea that Boudin was showing kindness to those whose life circumstances led them to get caught up in crime, "[Boudin's] progressivism was cruel," says Ostly. "The city should be helping defendants live their best lives. Boudin was not doing that and that's why he was recalled."
The answer, of course, is not a crackdown on low-level, victimless crimes or a carte blanche for cops. Nor can a D.A. fix the economic or regulatory circumstances that lead to people living on the streets. But people want to live with the basic expectation that if they are robbed or assaulted, competent authorities will make an effort to bring the criminal to justice. Fair or not, San Franciscans were no longer living under that expectation, and hope the incoming regime will bring it back.
For the sake of progress, people will live with their cars being broken into again, with a double-digit rise in property crimes, with people literally dying on their streets. But at a certain point, and if given the chance, they will call a fire a fire, and will put it out.
*CORRECTION: This piece originally spelled Marie Hurabiell's last name as Huriabell.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nancy ftw.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT. Make Nancy a god damn editor at reason already.
This is exactly what I was saying last night.
Oh and BTW: Here is what I said last night:
"Is this the best that Reason can do? Is it completely impossible for them to get off their high horse and do some reporting from within the god damn city? It isn't like this was a surprise election. It has been known for months."
https://reason.com/2022/06/08/prosecutorial-reform-recall-san-francisco-district-attorney-chesa-boudin/?comments=true#comment-9534569
And what do you know. Nancy actually traveled to fucking San Francisco. All the tut tutting from Lancaster (Reason Editor in DC) and his sources at the New York Times (Dem PR Outfit in NY). The rationalizing from Levin (Criminal Justice Reform Advocate in Houston) came from people who don't know shit about what is happening in SF. They looked at their pretty formatted tables of crime statistics and just wonder aloud why those whiny SF people would vote against Boudin.
Then Nancy went there and it was clear as day to her.
KMW, learn from Nancy. It is your only hope.
I also enjoyed the linked article in her substack about the downtown SF situation she experienced:
https://nancyrommelmann.substack.com/p/another-step-backward-the-chesa-boudin?s=w
I offered a significant donation to Reason to get Glenn Greenwald on staff. I never heard back.
Glenn Greenwald is a liberal.
Reason can't have a liberal on staff. Libertarianism has no liberal foundations. It is about hating Trump and griping about minutiae somewhere out on the edges of the very most ridiculous progressive policies while promoting open borders. That's what I've learned here at Reason.
Glad Nancy published this article, though. A rare Reason win. Even a stopped clock finds an acorn now and again. Though there was a similarly themed article in the Atlantic a couple of days ago, which makes you wonder if this is kind of late to the "progressives have fucked up SF" party.
Nancy is a breath of fresh air.
The Desert Fox rocks.
This quote --
-- really bugs me. (Note I am not blaming the author)
Trump was popular for the exact mirror reason --
-- yet the media did and do their damnedest to present Marxism and wokism (but I repeat myself) as correct and everything else as decadent fascism. The vast majority of people detest wokism. If national politics were between woke socialists and centrist ordinaries who don't have personal pronouns and don't approve of puberty blockers and Disney grooming, the ordinaries would win all 50 states; the electoral college vote would be 538-0. Yet the woke media distorted things so badly that only a crazy populist like Trump could break through their propaganda wall to be noticed by the public.
Fuck the goddam wokists. I'd rather have neither, but this is reality, not a libertopia, where I'd rather have Trump than Wokies.
Yeah, this 'harm reduction/reform decolonize everything' shit was popular with the blue-city left LONG before Trump was a glint in the milk man's eye.
I've been for "harm reduction" for a long time. And probably still am. But you have to consider the harms more broadly to all of the people living there, not just the degens getting high on the street.
Compare and contrast.
For those that don't click through, a picture of a state-sponsored PSA against smoking cigarettes, the stylish 50s ad of a man lighting up asking, "Mind if I smoke?" with a woman responding "Care if I die?"
Next to a state-sponsored PSA with a picture of svelte, attractive, fun-loving BIPOCS promoting safe Fentanyl and Heroin use, telling them to "use safely"
"Use with people and take turns. Try not to use alone or have someone check on you". Again, next to a picture of a small group of attractive BIPOCS having a good, clean raucous time.
I came across this from a tweet from one of my new besties, Michael Shellenberger:
For instance, I too have no problem with harm reduction measures such as using narcan to save people from overdoses. But quit telling them to just "keep on
truckin'usin'!"Which, by the way is Shellenberger's central thesis. And Shellenberger knows, because his fingerprints are all over the problem and he even admits it.
Right-shouldn't we attempt to get people off of narcotics, unless they explicitly need them for pain management? Seems like they need to pull the "use safely" PSAs and focus on helping, getting clean. Provide opportunities, so people realize there's a light on the other end of the tunnel if they can clean themselves up and break bad habits.
The overall message of "America Sucks, it's racist and always will be, you can't fix this system" is keeping people trapped in self-destructive cycles. We need hope.
Yeah, that's insane (the billboard). Shellenberger is very interesting. I hope he gets some traction with normal people in CA.
shit was popular with the blue-city left LONG before Trump was a glint in the milk man's eye.
Fred and Mary Trump probably did the nasty shortly after V-J day. You wouldn't even recognize the "left" and the "right" of that time.
It's almost like the media prefers our politics to be a 24/7 shitshow (and with only extreme options on the ballots that match the pundits' preferences).
We're talking about SF and anti-Trump sentiment then I don't mind since that is a real and pervasive thing among the SF populace. Whether that sentiment is fair or not is another issue entirely since the people love mr. Clinton but despise Trump for talking about being allowed to do the things Bill forced on women or otherwise did
I think the word you're looking for is "normals":
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/154608195X/reasonmagazinea-20/
But at a certain point, and if given the chance, they will call a fire a fire, and will put it out.
Mostly peaceful...
Thank you. Man. It's so nice to see a post on Reason that doesn't just associate Boudin as some lost reformer. It does more damage to reform then not.
Nancy has the distinction of having lived in blue-tard central (Portland) and was the subject of a mentally unstable #MeToo Cancel campaign. When you have those scars on your body, you're much more willing to call a thing what it is.
Yeah, those were good articles. I truly think being slightly outside of the three major media markets also tends to do something positive for a journalist.
I don't know where she lives now. Everyone is affected to some extent by parochialism. The effect is very specific though to those in DC/NYC/LA though. Just being a journalist outside of those cities, regardless of ideological background, tends to lead to better analysis.
She had a great series of articles published here about Portland. Not sure if you were around much when those came out.
I was always sort of half around, and I did see them. My long disappearance was a combination of work stuff, plus this place got almost unbearable after 2016, in both the comments and the articles.
Also, I still think the board is haunted by the losses of the Glibbening. Though, trying to post on Glibertarians was too insular and boring. It's a narrow path that the Reason comments somehow manage.
Same....The problem on Glibertarians is that it is a couple of personalities that have their schtick and stick to it. All good people, and I often agree with them, but they are comfortable with each other and the same old tropes. Like Friends always hanging at the same coffee house.
Yeah, and because they are producing the articles themselves there's nothing really to react to. I wish they had come back, but that's clearly not going to happen.
Still wonder what happened to Just Sayn and that other guy whose name I'm forgetting whose name linked to some Irish classical song. There's a few people that disappeared in my interim.
Oh well. That's life.
Well, I'm glad you are back around more. It was pretty horrible for a while there, but there are still enough worthwhile commenters that I keep coming back. I can't do Glibertarians either. Too clubby and self-congratulatory, though I do miss seeing the commentary of many of those people. I'm part of a private group of H&R refugees that is much better if you ask me.
It's fun. It depends day to day whether I have time to obsess on the internet, but it's calmed down. When 2024 comes around we will see if it becomes hell on Earth again.
I do post at NR sometimes, but I have less fun commenting there even if the articles are mostly higher quality. Reason seems to be having a bit of a hard time lately. Glad they still have a few folks I think are interesting though. De Rugy, Tucille, Slade, Rommelmann. Actually, Liz Wolfe is pretty solid.
I guess really it's the main crew that's weak now. Gillespie, Welsh, Sudermann.
Gillespie was actually (to me) the only one who stayed sane the last couple of Trump years. Especially in 2020 he was the only one who would post articles saying "This impeachment is a distraction. Can we get onto the important stuff now?"
Ah, so using the IC and State Department to coup the elected president, in order to protect widespread corruption and using completely fabricated evidence, is just a distraction.
Real great voice for liberty there.
Jfc
Gillespie's takes are generally pretty decent. But I've never found him particularly impressive. "Weak" doesn't seem like a bad descriptor. Maybe it's my taste, but his hipster English major style mostly kind of annoys me.
English Majors are generally upstanding people and the best guests at any gathering
This is a lie.
English majors don’t go to gatherings once out of grad school.
Weak may be the understatement of this century. Two of them seem more obsessed w/ pop culture than individual rights, and welsh, not sure what his focus is on. Clearly, trump's fault. /sarc
What were the folks of SF thinking they were getting when electing an indoctrinated Marxist?
Political cosplay?
also
Marxism for thee but not for me.
Most likely they didn't bother to find out enough about Marxism to know that a red diaper baby like Boudin would not believe in private property and would despise the middle class.
It wasn't his "incompetence" it was his agenda.
What's the difference?
Between pre-med and law?
I guess practically, very little. But it matters a lot for elections whether someone is successfully doing what they were voted in to do, versus just being incompetent. The latter scenario opens one up to the "True Communism Has Never Been Tried" argument.
It needs to be made clear that what happened was an explicit policy decision and make clear that policies of its ilk have consequences of a type.
This is why Douglas Murray is the GOAT.
Douglas Murray
@DouglasKMurray
·
57m
You’re ice cream. Why are you talking?
Democracy good and hard! Though by removing Boudin, most SFC residents probably did not get the lesson hard enough.
The fact 40% still support this guy proves your point.
40% of those who voted. Probably a relatively small portion of the actual population voted.
With universal mailed-in balloting and thousands of "homeless" that can be rounded up to vote for anything, at the cost of a pack of cigarettes, no vote in California can be looked at as a legitimate reflection of what the populace wants.
This guy went, because the powers that be decided he needed to go.
There is this funny thing that happens every now and again. All these hard left people live in their bubbles that are well curated by the folks at the NYT, WaPo, Blue Check Twitteratti, and other blue enclaves. These "acceptable" conduits of information paint a bizarre reality that means never having to doubt any of the most lefty views.
That works fine when you are talking about abstract things like "National Economy" or "The war in Europe" or "Flyover Country". Sure, my neighbor lost his job, and gas is expensive, but NYT says the income gap is shrinking, and in general the economy is strong. It's easy to consider what you see each day as an outlier.
But then one day these people are reading about their own city. And some guy in DC or Houston lecturing them about shit they live and breathe every day...And the bubble pops. This is how Virginia "inexplicably" throws out the governor telling parents their schools are fine. And this is how San Fran throws out the DA who insists Crime isn't actually that bad.
Part of shifting all these political questions to the federal level is that it allows exactly this kind of obfuscating. "Sure, you have this one example of bad shit, but it is just one example. Don't worry, the WaPo is here to tell you that in general, over the horizon, everything is just fine!"
I don't think it was planned this way. I think it just organically happened this way.
I mean, as people moved online and away from local printed media, all the bigs online were ones with broad, national coverage. nobody really figured out a way to get local coverage and make it profitable, and the googles pretty much locked up any profitability from online ads, while the craigs list and the e bay had taken away classified income, the major income source of a lot of local papers.
So, national became the thing.
That said, you're right. I just think that progressives have taken advantage of the fact, not that they planned it out. Never miss an opportunity, right? So if control of media has centralized, and you have major inroads (all.. ALL journalism schools have gone hard progressive, and these newsrooms are all staffed by young journalism grads with very little respect for old reporter's principles) then you take advantage.
National does fit progs, though. They genuinely think they know better, and most people lack the imagination to understand that what is popular in Manhattan is ridiculous in small town Wyoming. It's easy to get a young, urban, educated in progressive schools voter to believe that the President should just be able to dictate one law "for the public good" for all 330 million in America. You know, because compromising and convincing others of the value of your rules is a threat to democracy.
Oh no doubt. And we all do this. We all pick and choose the facts we live with. And we all have reasons why some specific counter-example doesn't destroy the narrative.
Right now, today, there are places Flat Earthers can do to get all the information they need to reinforce their worldview and counter every basic argument that threatens it. Right now, you can go to Gateway Pundit and still see them declaring they found the DNA fingerprints of fraud that have been shown to be mathematical artifacts. We can confirm our bias easily.
The difference is that these Blue enclaves are MAINSTREAM. They are ubiquitous. And the rot in Journalistic culture is so bad that people like Lancaster and Levin and those at the NYT and WaPo don't feel a shred of doubt that they are declaring "Truth" about things 3000 miles away.
Yeah, exactly that.
As a kid I sort of expected printed media to be biased but true. Now, I am convinced if Progressive Democrats decided flat earth was popular -- it was the new thing everyone should worry about -- the Times or, especially Wapo, would be running articles about the great a'Tuin and the four elephants and telling me if I don't believe in them it's because I'm racist.
But, more practically, with no local reporters you cannot get real local news. Twitter and the things that substitute for boots on the ground reporting of 25 years ago are not the same. And are way more manipulable and manipulated. But that's what mainstream media uses to take the public temperature, and has been for 15 years. It has replaced the reporter with a beat, where he would know cops and prosecutors, or would know entertainers and theater owners and patrons, or would know local community people he covered, personally. Now it's just covering national politics and everything else is analytics pulled from trending twitter hashtags.
You have to live with the people you want to understand to understand them, and you have to see things with your own eyes to suss out what is happening.
NYT doesn't know shit about how someone lives in Cheyenne, or Pueblo, or Billings, or Clinton, Mo. Nor do politicians in DC, alas. And they don't care to learn.
I'm in a grouchy mood today. Geez.
Shoulda seen me last night. That last article from Levin about San Fran tipped me into a full on rant. I'm glad my pup had to be put down a year ago, because he might have been kicked.
I really don't think these people in other cities understand just how BAD the permissive vagrancy is here in california. They don't realize that these tents sit on the trail your kid bikes to school, and no one in the city gives a fuck. When someone in VA then quotes you some NYT article, I bust a capillary.
Things are going to get much worse.
Not just in San Francisco
They wiped the homeless camp at the bottom of my street. I haven't taken a walk through the adjacent park that has a large wooded greenbelt yet... because it's possible they spirited themselves back in there. However, they cleaned it up. I'm cautiously optimistic about our new Mayor (whose fingerprints are all over the problem, but I'll take what I can get). However, I don't trust the voters or the democratic process here. So we'll see how this goes.
The best solution I have is to get everyone onto West Seattle and turn it into a fort.
I live in West Seattle, we're already overrun. They're inside the wire.
Damn. And presumably Bainbridge and Mercer still don't allow regular people to enter.
This is a hard situation. Though, fun fact, my uncle's friend's son got stabbed in Belltown last year while coming home from work. So, take heart that it's not quite there yet.
We have an increasing number and size of homeless camps in Spokane too.
Tucson I don't know if we have more camps, but definitely more small groups of homeless wandering around. It's gotten noticeable, even in a city that is classically crusty.
Here, too. In the areas that used to be a bit crusty, there are way more homeless and way more tent villages.
It has been progressing since Obama got elected, but I was cutting through some areas downtown after business there last month, and it's very odd. Rapidly gentrifying but well established homeless camps on street corners and especially all the freeway overpasses.
It's all way more noticeable.
My wife has an appointment at the Mayo Clinic, so we're in Rochester, MN. Homeless begging at every exit ramp. I wonder if they're there in the winter?
Are you sure they are homeless? A lot of beggars make a decent living and have stable living situations.
Could be either way. Looked pretty scuzzy but then again they would wouldn't they? Even if it's a scam.
It's still not very bad where I am. But we get the people with signs standing at intersections and stuff. I often wonder what their deal really is. Are they really suffering hard times, or did they just decide to try the itinerant vagabond life for a while?
Just like under every BART overpass in Oakland.
Although I did manage to buy a nice back wheel for my bike from a guy in a huge encampment which must have had 200 bikes in various states of disrepair
"I feel like we're all part of an experiment and halfway through the experiment, it's not working. I don't want to be part of the experiment anymore," says Josh Steel, one of maybe 100 supporters of Yes on H who crammed into a Tiki bar in the Marina District to watch election returns."
Josh Steel is 100% correct, but you see, this is why knowing history is so much more important than people realize. Most folks believe incorrectly that the past doesn't really matter much, but if they were better educated and informed they would have known that most of these far left experiments have been tried already and have failed before!
George Santayana was dead on the money: those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And why repeat the same dumb experiments and the same shitty ideas that will bring about all the same shity results if you don't have to?
As I allude to above, I don't trust the voters and democratic process in a place that overwhelmingly created the problem, then suddenly woke up at 11:59pm and realized there was a problem. What's to stop them from reverting to the thinking that was in place at 11:58pm?
Worse yet, those assholes are increasingly fleeing your city and bringing their voting habits to mine. My new city councilman is a ‘defund the police’ Marxist.
Senator McCarthy was not wrong.
So far we've kept them mostly isolated to Bozeman, Butte and Missoula, although they're starting to bleed over into the Treasure Valley. Billings has mostly been immune, and Miles City seems immune currently as well. Guess they don't like the prairie. They also largely disappear during the winters. Minus 20 for weeks on end tends to dampen their spirits.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1534877239203926016?t=pVp3v6IMFyxHQoi-9GnDyw&s=19
Biden predicts "mini revolution" in November if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade
[Link]
Insurrection! Insurrect... *gets tap on shoulder* *whispering ensues*
This is different...because...you just STFU racist!
https://twitter.com/GrantHermes/status/1534907467959762945?t=-Igu_nQlpUnnBdaMT0KgTQ&s=19
CONFIRMED: FBI is executing a search warrant at the Allendale home of Ryan Kelley. There's also an arrest warrant out for him. Kelley is a current GOP gov candidate polling around 19%, the top of the field right now. He was also on the Capitol steps on Jan. 6. 1/
FBI spokesperson says the details of the arrest warrant should be coming down soon. when I asked about a timeline the spox said they were hoping for "sooner rather than later"
More to come.
https://twitter.com/IQfy_/status/1521872780437954561?t=H-IyLf9c4KXiw-fvEHLxfg&s=19
Don't let the horrific events in recent days distract you from the fact that Ukraine is George Floyd and George Floyd is Ukraine. #BlackLivesMatter
[Pic]
Reason - more Nancy less ENB.
I'm honestly wondering how it's even possible Nancy got hired, she seems downright rational!
Boo-yah! An actual reporter wants to cover this story!
Well, when you do actual reporting and not just check Twitter for opinions, you get a quality article. Sadly, I doubt ENB will take note.
There is a distinct difference between the proposition:
"The police need to respect the rights of the public, including those of those accused of crimes."
and the proposition:
"Criminals represent an oppressed underclass of society and shouldn't be punished for engaging in crime."
Boudin and the rest of the Soros DAs are champions of the latter position. But, the NAP doesn't suggest that. It suggests that people who violate others' rights are, in fact, deserving of punishment.
Or if not punishment, at least resistance.
It us important ti note that thise who velieve the latter also support stricter gun control laws
FARC is a paramilitary Marxist group out of Columbia. There’s no doubt in my mind that Marxist groups within the U.S. /Soros funding are indeed the same narco leftist thing- FARC -Shining Path Peru-etc etc.
Good job Nancy you should look into your own substack.
https://nancyrommelmann.substack.com/
Thanks look forward to reading it.
'"I've watched an open-air drug market go on where I live and where I work for the past two years, 24 hours a day," says a librarian who declined to give her name. "I've watched people deteriorate. I've had dead bodies picked up off my block. The only thing that's going to change this is that we have a district attorney that starts prosecuting drug dealers and holding them accountable. That is the reason why San Francisco is filthy and that's why there's crime and that's why there are tents everywhere. It's been incredibly painful."'
There is literally no evidence that prosecuting drug dealers reduces crime, reduces filth, or reduces tents. It is utter nonsense. More people are killed by alcohol every year than fentanyl; should all the liquor store owners and clerks be arrested? The only reason fentanyl is even a problem is because the government prosecutes drug dealers in the first place.
Maybe do some research into the utter, murderous failure of the drug war, before you embarrass yourself. People do not do drugs and overdose because of dealers. They do drugs because they want to, and that is why the dealers are there. Eliminating the dealers does not stop people from wanting to do drugs, so new dealers rise to take their places. Always, everywhere. Seriously, there is a mountain of evidence. Do some basic due diligence.
The number of countries who have eliminated drug use from their societies in the history of human civilization is literally zero. Zero is also the number of drug dealers that should be prosecuted, as drug use should not be a criminal issue in the first place.
I am honestly shocked by the terrible reasoning in this article, but I am not shocked by the commenters approving of it. For being a libertarian website, nearly every commenter seems to be a conservative.
Note that I am not defending the progressive delusion that failing to prosecute property crimes, assaults, etc, or saying that Boudin was actually good at his job. It's a separate issue.
Democracy Now, that’s a left wing media site, right? I suggest they change the name to “authoritarianism now”, democracy is too conservative for leftists.
Nancy is a reporter and the quote that angers you is not from the author. It's a local resident speaking. I don't think Nancy or the vast majority of commenters here favor ramping up the WOD or arresting street dealers. But to be clear, SF has not legalized drugs. If such a thing were possible customers could demand a quality product from suppliers or threaten civil liability. I doubt if many of the 1700 fentanyl deaths were deliberate suicides. Somebody got some bad shit from some guy who was probably back the next day selling more. You don't have to be a prohibitionist to realize that dead bodies and human feces in the street are not indicative of a healthy civilization. I don't have a practical solution to offer but the situation described above doesn't sound like a libertarian paradise to me.
'Zero is also the number of drug dealers that should be prosecuted, as drug use should not be a criminal issue in the first place.' If you need to operate in a world were 'should' is more likely to be accepted 'is,' then you may want to evaluate how your biases impact your worldview. Reality does not conform to one's desires without effort, and there is zero evidence that you are making any effort as you have proposed no changes or reforms to drug law, merely stated that prosecution should not occur. As for your argument on the reasoning in the article, your mere say so is not an indicator that is it terrible -exactly as your mere statement is not an indicator that drug dealers should not be prosecuted. You fail to argue any point, because you simply make the statement believing it is self-evident -neither case is true, and you fail on both. Your risible argument ending w' 'due some due diligence,' arguing that if drug dealers are arrested, the demand remains, so new dealers rise to fill the vacuum is a masterful exercise in immature thinking. One does not stop doing something because of market forces -do some due diligence.
I have an idea for prosecutorial reofrm. I will adapt an idea posted by Jack Marshall.
Similarly, if a prosecutor engaged in misconduct, it should be strict liability for the district attorney, state's attorney, or attorney general, everyone up the chain of command.
Boudin isn't "delusional" at all; he is the radical son of radical left wing terrorists.
Boudin is communist from the start. His parents were members of the Weather Underground who were involved in an armored car heist that ended with the murders of two guards and a police officer. His mother was sentenced to twenty years and his father to forty.
Chesa was raised by Bill Ayers and his live in girlfriend, both members of Weather Underground communists. This is where Boudin learned the ins and outs of fronting Marxist/communist ideals.
Chesa Boudin reflects the radical leftist ideals responsible for the mess not only in Frisco but in every democrat run city across the country.
The people of San Francisco voted for this little creep and they got what they wanted good and hard. Now they have to live with it and they don't like it.
Gee, that's too bad.