1 Year After Chesa Boudin's Recall, Is San Francisco Safer Under His Successor's More Punitive Policies?
Brooke Jenkins took office one year ago this week promising more prosecution for drug and property crime offenders. Crime and overdoses still went up.

Last summer, San Franciscans voted by a 10-point margin to recall Chesa Boudin, the city's progressive district attorney. Boudin was one of several high-profile progressives who ran in local district attorney races on a platform of smarter, more humane criminal justice policy. Crime continued to plague San Francisco after Boudin's election, and his recall looked like a major setback for criminal justice reform in urban areas.
His successor, Brooke Jenkins, assumed office one year ago this month after promising a return to more punitive prosecution. Is San Francisco any safer now than it was under Boudin?
From her first days in office, Jenkins pledged to serve as a contrast to her predecessor. She revoked plea agreements for drug offenses offered during Boudin's time in office and said she would more aggressively prosecute possession of illicit fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid often mixed with other narcotics. She has touted increased arrests as necessary for "disrupting open-air drug markets."
However, over her first 11 months, violent crime rose, driven by a 12 percent increase in robberies and a 1.6 percent increase in assaults. San Francisco is also on track to have its deadliest year ever in opioid overdoses.
According to The San Francisco Standard, Jenkins convicted fewer drug dealers in her first 11 months in office than Boudin did in his final 11 months, and reported drug offenses are up 41 percent during her tenure. Boudin also charged a higher percentage of drug cases brought to his office in 2021 than Jenkins has in 2023: 73 percent versus 68 percent, respectively.
The Standard article does note that in her first 11 months, compared to Boudin's final 11 months, Jenkins has filed more charges for drug offenses. And although Jenkins has secured fewer drug convictions than Boudin, she has secured more felony convictions for drug offenses.
Boudin ran for office promising to end "mass incarceration" and no longer seek cash bail or prosecute "quality-of-life crimes." His term began in January 2020 and recall efforts had begun by April 2021. Opponents cited rising crime rates in the city and a general sense that Boudin was not enforcing the law. The San Francisco Police Officers Association called Boudin a "criminal defense attorney masquerading as the DA."
During his two-year tenure, nearly half of the prosecutors in Boudin's office resigned or were fired. Jenkins quit in October 2021 and immediately joined the recall effort. In July 2022, one month after the recall, Mayor London Breed picked Jenkins as interim D.A., and she won a special election in November to serve out the remainder of Boudin's term.
Solving San Francisco's crime problem has proven as difficult for a tough-on-crime prosecutor as it did for a smart-on-crime prosecutor. That should come as no surprise: The U.S. has spent over a trillion dollars across more than five decades fighting the War on Drugs, and yet the drugs are still here. Data shows that harsher penalties, including longer prison terms, do not lead fewer people to use drugs.
"Everyone deserves to feel safe and we can't incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. We encourage prosecutors to make incarceration a last resort and favor alternative solutions backed by evidence and research," Akhi Johnson, director of the Reshaping Prosecution initiative at the Vera Institute for Justice, a nonprofit that supports criminal justice reform, tells Reason in an emailed statement. "We have to move beyond tough on crime tactics that encourage people to believe that communities must choose between safety and reform to recognize that real safety will require approaches that reduce our reliance on incarceration."
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
Jenkins convicted fewer drug dealers in her first 11 months in office than Boudin did in his final 11 months,
Boudin also charged a higher percentage of drug cases brought to his office in 2021 than Jenkins has in 2023: 73 percent versus 68 percent, respectively.
So she actually DIDNT do more “punitive” enforcement did she?
That is the amazing thing. The article talks a lot about what Jenkins saud she would do compared to what Boudin said he would do, without really talking much about what they actually did, and yet still concludes that Boudin's way is better than some theoretical law and order regime which has not seemed to have been tried.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
She's clearly Kamala Harris' understudy. The only question is which married official she had a sexual relationship with to get her current position. If she keeps it up she could even get to be Vice President of the United States some day.
Progressives want more government and then when progressives take over, they do absolutely nothing to govern except talk. All they deliver is chaos and higher taxes.
My understanding is that the amount of poop on the street has decreased so it looks like the new administration had been working on wiping that out. Has these numbers increased, it could be used as part of a smear campaign.
It's a crappy situation, to be sure.
Bums everyone out.
If there were a “Top Poop Cleaner” badge that San Fran gave to public works staff that did an outstanding job cleaning up these messes and one employee wore it without having earned it, would that be referred to as Stoolen Valor?
Kohler me surprised.
I bidet you all goodbye.
Isn’t that department flush with cash?
Someone may have managed to fudge the numbers.
They will just paper over the problem.
That won’t bowel anyone over.
I know I would be pissed about it.
They could engage in defecate spending.
What they need is more accountability. Sun light is the best anti-septic.
At least the shit hasn't hit the fan yet.
Maybe president Bidet can clean it up.
He could hold a benefit concert to raise awareness with the main act being the Squeeze.
Maybe he can give the job to SQRLSY.
The key to reducing crime in this country long-term is to stop subsidizing the reproduction of indigent unmarried women.
this would definitely help.
The other thing to be done is to privatize all the public land.
I can make my own rules for the sidewalk i own and spray the bums with a hose if i want. The city cannot do that.
"Everyone deserves to feel safe and we can't incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. We encourage prosecutors to make incarceration a last resort and favor alternative solutions backed by evidence and research," Akhi Johnson, director of the Reshaping Prosecution initiative at the Vera Institute for Justice, a nonprofit that supports criminal justice reform, tells Reason in an emailed statement. "We have to move beyond tough on crime tactics that encourage people to believe that communities must choose between safety and reform to recognize that real safety will require approaches that reduce our reliance on incarceration."
Hopefully you got some compensation for that advertising.
BTW, the Vera Institute is the Soros-backed group that helped fund our local debacle of a prosecutor, and trained her office how not to prosecute 'certain people' in the name of 'equity'.
https://heartlandernews.com/2023/03/07/st-louis-circuit-attorney-kim-gardners-agenda-revealed-fox-says-soros-backed-group-trained-her-office-in-how-not-to-prosecute/
Coincidentally, the very same George Soros with whom Chuckie Koch launched a joint venture to funnel billions of dollars to Marxist DAs.
I find it highly amusing when these same soft on crime liberals are themselves victimized by crime, especially violent and psychologically damaging.
Given the pace of trials in California, I would think convictions would be very poor metric.
The charging is all she has had time to do, and you admit she is doing more of that. Wait until all the cases filed under her term have gone all the wat through the system, then compare results.
I know that in St. Louis, after a similar struggle to get rid of a so-called 'progressive prosecutor', we all feel much better off. The new guy is re-staffing the office, and the police and prosecutor are working together again.
'Criminal Justice Reform' can not and should not be someone just ignoring the law and doing things like 'we're not going to prosecute BIPOC for crimes anymore', which is basically what we had going on here for the last few years. Talk about actual systemic racism.
It has to be targeted at the actions, and the law, and not skin color or neighborhoods or 'unhoused' status. The same rules should generally apply to everyone - and the fact that this has become a foreign concept to some people in power is just one of the absurdities we apparently live with now.
If you want to suggest non-prosecution of some minor 'victimless' or 'non-violent' crimes, while others work to get those crimes removed from the code of ordinances, be my guest - I fully support that. Just keep in mind that not all non-violent crimes are victimless.
Vandalism, robbery, theft, break-ins, violence, murder, etc - refusal to prosecute these offenses does not result in justice, and isn't reform.
It only takes a leftist a short while to demolish the accomplishments of generations, and it typically takes a long time to 'build back better" (heh) from the destruction they caused.
With that said, San Francisco's problems go well beyond mitigating criminal behavior. It's absolutely crippled by its own socio-ideological sickness and this is the result of that. The only thing that would really fix it would be a Thermidorian Reaction or the Big One.
The problem is the cultural shift that comes with it.
Loss of trust in community. Loss of trust in local authorities, as well as their loss of trust in their people. Tear crap apart.
Once the damage is done, everything in a store has to be behind a cage, everyone knows the police won't help you, and you're surrounded by people who are not your friends and neighbors, but instead are people you've been convinced to fear and distrust...
Progressivism as it is being pushed these days really is an insidious philosophy.
When the core of your belief system is that all property should be abolished and that a society should be in a constant, perpetual state of revolution, you become incapable of actually building anything of lasting value.
Weird how that works out, over and over, every single time.
Yeah, it is. So weird.
Makes you really understand why the destruction and rewriting of history is so important to some folks.
The truth is San Francisco is circling the drain. Just wait until the final straw that sounds the death knell and that city becomes a ghost town filled only with homeless drug addicts and dangerous, mentally unstable whackadoodles.
What bugs the shit out of me is how is Reason's fawning coverage of people like Boudin or Krasner, only to ignore the harsh treatment of the J6 prisoners.
Wait. What J6 prisoners?
I'm assuming you're taking a shot at Reason's failure to cover the abuses and civil rights violations being visited on those people, correct?
What do you expect from regime media?
St. Louis has one of the highest homicide rates in the US; San Francisco one of the lowest. Very different situations.
(If Boudin was so bad; how is it that SF had so few homicides?)
How about all the other crimes?
If you park your car on the street, you have to leave it unlocked so the thieves won't break a window to get in and steal everything inside.
Demographics. Take a look at Oakland's homicide rate.
San Fran has a high violent crime rate. Seven times higher than where I live. But it isn’t St Louis or Chicago.
Chicago, Year to date:
Shot and killed: 314
Shot and wounded: 1278
Total shot: 1592
Total homicides: 341
courtesy Hey Jackass/ http://heyjackass.com/
What's the homicide rate in Dog Dick Georgia, shreek? Gotta be lower than the rate of child sexual assault since you moved there.
St. Louis has like 7 zip codes that give the entire metro area a bad reputation.
Where I live, our zip code has had something like 2 murders and 5 total shootings in the 15 years I've lived here.
How many deaths were called “???” so the DA had no reason to prosecute?
Here's what I'd like a prosecutor to say:
"Show me the victim. If you can't point to someone who has harmed, then I need some convincing to prosecute."
"K, here's my store that was looted, my employees that were intimidated, my customers that were terrorized, and my insurance premiums that are rising through the roof!"
Unless the crime is trespassing in which case you support summary execution by one-man firing squad, right drunky?
Absolutely. Invade my home......lose your head.
Libertarians told conservatives this for decades: harsher punishments do not reduce crime, they only fill up jails. Now it's time to tell the progressives the same thing.
Crime is not caused because kids weren't punished enough, and that punishing adults will correct that oversight. Prison is at best a minor deterrent. Doesn't mean we get rid of prisons, but we do need to recognize that they are not the universal answer to crime.
First off, drug use should NOT be a crime. Don't want open air sales of narcotics? Legalize shops selling narcotics!
Second, the greatest factor leading to crime is poverty and hopelessness. Guess who's policies lead to moar proverty? That's right, the progressive's! Reverse the trend with freer economic policies. Let people build new houses, let them open up new stores, let them transact business without needing a city/county inspection.
Hell, just go for broke and make all of SF a free trade / free enterprise zone.
When I was growing up I read about how America was a land of opportunity where anyone could start a business by offering what they do best to other people.
I became a good cook, but discovered The Land of the Free won't let you cook for people unless you have a dedicated kitchen for commercial use. Ok, whatever. I got good at making beer. Turns out The Land of the Free is fine with you selling it as long as you make it in a different building, get a bunch of permits, pay a bunch of fees, and then pay a bunch of taxes. If you want to advertise, better plan a year ahead to get approval.
"You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWliMM9z0Y
And yet thousands of other people managed to do it.
Yes, those rules are inhibitory. Yet you can still cook in someone else's commercial kitchen, and you can still brew in someone's brewery. It's only if you want the headaches of being the business owner that the aforementioned barriers are in your way.
The definition of success is overcoming barriers.
You shouldn't have to succeed at overcoming artificial barriers erected by government apparatchiks. Doing so shows resilience, but it's nothing to be proud about and nothing you should wish to see imposed on anyone else. That's got absolutely nothing to do with why drunky the self-admitted convicted felon and former homeless vagrant is a 60 year old fucking loser drinking himself (hopefully) to an early grave though.
Making toilet wine during your self-admitted time spent in jail for numerous felonies while you were a homeless vagrant doesn't really count as beer-making, drunky. Any more than your radiator grilled cheese sandwiches and beans count towards your experience as a gourmet chef who never heard of a Cuban sandwich because you've never encountered any spics in Maine. You went to jail because you're a piece of shit, not because you're economically persecuted. You lost your wife and kids because you're a piece of shit, not because you're economically persecuted. And you are now a hopeless alcoholic welfare queen living in a section 8 apartment spending 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week of your life rage posting on a poorly trafficked left wing pop culture site because you're a piece of shit, not because you're economically persecuted. Most of those who share you fate are there for the same reason.
Grow potatoes and make vodka.
Maybe if you weren’t such a n alcoholic pussy shitweasel you wouldn’t be living I’m a garbage can like Oscar the Grouch.
Now run away and hide little girl.
First off, drug use should NOT be a crime. Don’t want open air sales of narcotics? Legalize shops selling narcotics!
Yeah, they tried that in Colorado, and it didn't reduce the black market one iota.
If you don't want open air narcotic markets, then drug use absolutely is going to be a crime. Since legalization has proven to be a complete disaster and all of the law and order predictions about it turned out to be correct, the Libertarian position has moved to "drugs still must be legal but we can somehow make it illegal to sell them on the street" or something.
If you allow it, a large number of people will do drugs, live on the street and beg and steal to feed their habit until they OD and die while ruining the quality of life for everyone around them in the process. That is the sad reality. Libertarians can't understand that because they actually think everyone in the world is just like them. It is long since passed being comical to just being pathetic.
What makes you think so? Other legal businesses don't have problems with open air markets in their line of business.
Because drugs are not other products. Again not everyone is just like you.
But there are drug stores! It's just a matter of getting rid of prescription requirements and other marketing restrictions. The drug business looks like any other AFAICT.
Are you really dense enough to think that just having drug stores prevents addiction of legal drugs? If so, I'd like to introduce you to the opioid epidemic which, in case you aren't aware, was largely the result of people getting hooked on perfectly legal prescription drugs.
So they're "hooked". That's good business! Everyone wants customers like that.
You're a stupid person, but that's hardly a surprise.
The opioid epidemic is a feeb talking point and largely driven by the retarded prescribing limits imposed by daddy gubmint on physicians. Because it's so much better for a 55 year old roofer with a blown out back to overdose on Chinese fentanyl smuggled into the country by some illiterate spic from Mexico than to sit his ass on social security popping vicodin, right?
Hey, I'm not the one glorifying drug addiction here, you and Roberta are. If these cities are full of junkies shooting up, it's largely because you and Roberta think this is perfectly okay, and I suspect it's because neither of you actually have to live in a place like this.
You don't have to be a drug warrior to note the empirical dysfunction caused by allowing a bunch of junkies to indulge their addictions in the public square.
If you want to make vagrancy a crime again I'm 100% fine with that. Have the cops come beat the shit out of the junkies and shove them along to the next town. Just don't sit there like a drug warrior faggot spewing idiotic talking points about the government-created opioid epidemic and then pretend you're even remotely libertarian. If drug warrior faggots like you hadn't made safe prescription opioids unavailable to the millions of chronic pain patients who use (and abuse) them there would be a lot less of those junkies ODing on Chinese-made, spic-imported fentanyl. Reason wants freedom without accountability. You want accountability without freedom.
Just talk to the 110,000 people who O.D.last year.
Oh, wait...you can't , they're all dead.
You should be pretty proud of that since most of them died overdosing on Chinese-made, spic-imported fentanyl after drug warrior faggots like you made it illegal for pill mill doctors to prescribe them safe opioid drugs made in legitimate labs. Better those dirty junkies should die shooting up on the street where they belong than have access to legal pills.
If you allow it, a large number of people will do drugs, live on the street and beg and steal to feed their habit until they OD and die while ruining the quality of life for everyone around them in the process. That is the sad reality.
Probably. But the solution to this is not coercion and making drug use illegal. The solution is for individuals to voluntarily engage in charitable work to help those who are suffering from addiction get help.
But that charitable spirit does not arise from nowhere. It has to be inculcated in a culture that values and promotes it.
The acceptance of mass drug use is a marker of a fully dysfunctional society. Charity isn't even going to come close to solving that because the society doesn't see drug addiction as an actual problem, just a regular issue that needs to be managed with MOAR FREE SHIT. That's why you have shitlib cities indulging in monitored injection sites so social workers can watch the druggie pump himself full of poison and stop any overdose that might happen.
I'll take the drug war over cities turning into what they've become any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If society doesn't see it as a problem, why do you have to?
If society doesn't want to indulge drug addiction, why do you have to?
There's a lot of space between "indulging drug addiction" and being a drug warrior faggot like you.
The current problem is they can't stop all O.D. as the proliferation of an animal tranquilizer, Xylazine is being found in street drugs in an increasingly greater degree.
Narcan will not prevent O.D. from this drug.Once the person goes down, that's it.
The only thing left to do is take blood samples and quantify how much Xylazine was present.
Just so you know, cytotoxic, your penchant for asking armed men from the government to steal from one group of people and give the loot to another group of people after skimming their cut off the top is not actually "charity" and your "culture" of radical Marxist genocidal violence doesn't inculcate anything besides dog-eat-dog destitution under totalitarian dictatorship.
Speaking of drugs, does the provincial healthcare system in Ontario cover your ozempic yet, you fat fucking lardass piece of shit?
I think you’re conflating “legalization” with “decriminalization in municipalities that also won’t enforce laws against actual crimes, and where vagrants have more rights to public and private property than tax payers or property owners do”.
Decriminalizing solves none of the dangers of hard drugs themselves and just leaves the same murder gangs in charge of the actual market.
The same thing happened to criminal Justice reform in general. There are real things that can use reforming, but Marxists got ahold of the concept and turned it into a race based pro-equity, anti-law enforcement exercise that has wrecked years of actual work towards progress.
You're right about legalization but wrong about "criminal justice reform." It was never anything but a Marxist ploy to empty the systems and use the chaos of criminal vagrants to terrorize the populace and bring them to heel under their jackboots.
I think you’re conflating “legalization” with “decriminalization in municipalities that also won’t enforce laws against actual crimes, and where vagrants have more rights to public and private property than tax payers or property owners do”.
If you don’t see how the two have been linked since the 1960s, I don’t know what else to tell you. There was always this pretense, which I used to support, that legalizing pot and other drugs would be a net positive for society. Then Colorado did it and I watched the Denver metro in particular deteriorate into a drug-addled homeless camp within 5 years. Pretty much every promise the “Legalize it” camp made never actually came to pass. It’s even worse in California.
Like a lot of other things the “far right” warned about from the 70s-90s that seemed like crank reactions at the time, their warnings about encouraging recreational drug use have proven far more accurate than the primrose promises of the legalization crowd.
I have lived in 3 states with legal weed and not one of them turned into a homeless encampment, drug warrior faggot. Maybe the problem isn't allowing responsible adults to buy weed at legal dispensaries. Maybe some of the other bullshit policies you vote for in your shit hole of a Marxist enclave state have something to do with it.
Too many taxes and regulations. And there is still a black market outside of the states that have legalized that incentivizes illegal producers to keep illegally producing. I think it would look different if you just legalize and don't do all the taxing and regulating.
In any case, it's a basic moral principle that you can't use violence against someone who is only harming himself. If the complaint is that druggies are harming others, then punish them for the things that harm others. The problem isn't so much that drugs are available (and they are plenty available even where basic laws are enforced) as that people aren't punished for their other anti-social, criminal behavior. As with many things, it's largely a cultural problem and flipping the laws on way or another isn't going to be a quick fix either way.
In any case, it’s a basic moral principle that you can’t use violence against someone who is only harming himself. If the complaint is that druggies are harming others, then punish them for the things that harm others. The problem isn’t so much that drugs are available (and they are plenty available even where basic laws are enforced) as that people aren’t punished for their other anti-social, criminal behavior.
No, the problem is that junkies are a massive burden on society. It's not just the petty crime and violence that comes from trying to get their hands on drugs, legal or not. Look at all the fucking money and resources that get thrown down a black hole because states want to encourage people to take drugs. The same people who say "don't drink and drive" have no qualms about encouraging people to get stoned out of their gourds, and then act shocked that fentanyl became so prominent in the junkie community. The Colorado STEM shooters admitted that they were high as fucking kites the morning they went to shoot up the school.
There's absolutely no net positive benefit to encouraging drug use. It destroys people's lives, and burdens the rest of the community to clean up their shit for them.
Who said anything about encouraging drug use? Stop throwing money at the problem. Make people deal with the consequences of their own actions. Punish people for their crimes against others. The problem with the places taking a hands of approach to hard drugs is that all that shit stays in place. Legalizing drug use without changing anything else will be a problem. But there are other options besides that.
What the fuck do you think legalization does, if not encourage people to indulge because there are no longer consequences to getting caught?
Bring back the 18th Amendment, right you drug warrior faggot bootlicking piece of shit? Too long have we suffered with our men getting drunk in seedy taverns all day! Everything not illegal is encouraged!
Did they legalize it, or did they legalize and tax the fuck out of it (as Democrats tend to do) thus ensuring that the street market wouldn’t die?
“Second, the greatest factor leading to crime is poverty and hopelessness.”
No, crime leads to poverty. Shops that are routinely vandalized and looted cannot remain in business and as they close, people are left without the services/products those stores provided and the employees are left unemployed. And no new stores will take their place as the cost of doing business will be to high relative to the expected reward. Plus the chance of being mugged and/or shot.
These people are not (for the most part) doing the crime out of desperation, but because it’s easy, its fun, and there are no consequences!
I agree with a lot of what Brandybuck says, but I don't really buy the poverty leads to crime thing. There are plenty of very poor communities without huge crime problems. And plenty of poor people in cities who don't resort to crime. It's far too simple an explanation.
Poverty leading to crime doesn't make sense. Do people commit mass shootings because they're poor? Do they rape because they can't afford the good hooker?
What about guys like Jeffery Epstein and his pals, if he was rich would he not have felt the need to own a private island where he could rape little children? Did Bernie Madoff only do his Ponzi scheme about of poverty?
I think that the argument is more that poverty leads to property crime and organized criminal activity because you can make money.
Just ask the CEOs of Wal Mart and Walgreens.
Hilton Hotels just left Frisco because of all the crime.
Total rubbish.
Crime is from the failure of parents or in most cases parent(baby mommas) to instill decency and good ethics along with proper behavior.
Also the indoctrination by liberal progressives, that no matter how hard a black person studies, gets good grades and tries to makes something of themselves, other than criminal behavior, he or she will fail because of white supremacists and systemic racism.
Liberal progressives are no one's friend.
It should not be surprising to anyone that big city officials and denizens don’t understand cause and effect or don’t want facts or logic to interfere with their political careers. The fact that efforts to enforce bad laws have very little to do with safety results of those efforts should clue in anyone who actually cares about reality that cause and effect are lacking in that system. One might conclude that packing too many human beings into too small a location, aside from having no particular advantage in the last fifty years or more, causes crime and official corruption. One might also reason that people who don’t like crime and corruption would move away from the centers of that crime and corruption. It would be interesting to find out why there is anyone productive still living or working in San Francisco, but otherwise I don’t really care.
Enforcing laws against theft and violent crime has a whole lot to do with safety.
Do you really think that or are you just mouthing "Back the Blue" platitudes? The last time I checked, big city prosecutors could plausibly claim to have convicted about 25% of the crimes reported, which is about 50% of the crimes committed. I suspect that if every peaceable resident of San Francisco publicly carried a firearm and was proficient in its safe use, crime would plummet there. If you're relying on the police raiding drug dealers to eliminate crime, you're in for a very disappointing future.
I can't speak for Reg here, but I absolutely want the police and the prosecutors to be serious about theft and violent crime.
It also probably wouldn't hurt if the general public was also allowed to be serious about theft and violent crime. As opposed to say, recently in NYC, where people who are violently attacked and then defend themselves end up being the ones prosecuted (several events).
Why in the world should a libertarian oppose punitive policies against crime — which is to say, punishing criminals? We’re against making things crimes that shouldn’t be. We’re for people receiving due process and fair trials when accused of crimes. But if someone commits an *actual* crime of violating someone else’s individual rights, and is convicted, the violator should be punished. If this results in lots of thieves and thugs in prison, the problem is not “over-incarceration”, the problem is an over-supply of thieves and thugs. I’d prefer the criminals were put down by their victims during the attempted crime, but failing that, jail is the next best thing.
Don’t want people arrested for using/having drugs? Me neither. But that’s called “legalizing drugs”, not “criminal justice reform.”
Because we have a TV set with a brightness knob but the one for contrast is hidden. So we can easily affect the amount of arrests and punishments for violations, but we can't easily affect what actions constitute violations. So it may seem the only practicable option for decreasing what we don't want is to accept as the price decreasing what we do want. Or increasing what we do want, accepting a concomitant increase in what we don't want. It's the quantitative theory of government and law enforcement; qualitative reforms are intractable.
The way government is structured, the brightness knob is executive/administrative so it's easier to get democratic control of. The contrast knob, the content of the prohibitions, that's going to require some very heavy legislative lifting. and usually fail.
1. The "contrast knob" seems to me to be going in the right direction lately. Not anywhere near where it should be yet, but a lot more movement than there has been in a long time.
2. You are (as you point out) accepting an increase in murders, rapes, thefts, etc. as the price of reducing incarceration of drug users. I'm leery about that tradeoff.
3. If you're honest with the public about what you're doing -- as you should be -- they *definitely* won't consider that a tradeoff worth making, and I expect the "legalize drugs = go easy on criminals" association will backfire badly.
Word. There are lots of things that are illegal that shouldn't be. But for crimes against people or their property, I have no problem with punishing the fuck out of people. Or, better yet, people getting lit up when they rob someone or break into a home.
Hear fucking Hear! The problem is that "libertarianism" is really just a political term for think-tank Marxism. The word libertarian actually comes from European Marxist and anarchist terminology and all of the originators of the term from the 1960s and 1970s in the US were "former" Marxists. So there's nothing about the superficial "non-aggression principle" style of American libertarianism that would inherently oppose punishing criminals, but it's perfectly consistent with the Marxist ideology from which actual libertarians sprung.
Neither one of those is going to happen any time soon. It's not in the vested interests of big city politicians to remove the source of their political slogans or the voter fear that keeps them in power. So you're saying, in essence, keep enforcing bad laws even though they're bad laws and enforcing them is counterproductive until something better happens that isn't ever going to happen.
Lawlessness is preferable to imperfect enforcement of laws against violence and property crime, that about it, faggot?
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
No beotch
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A year later and Chuckie Koch still malding over his butt buddy Soros getting his ass handed to him in fucking San Francisco of all places.
HOES MAD!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>>Click the link————>>> GOOGLE WORK
Remember "Escape from New York"? Build a wall across the neck of the peninsula.
Chesa Boudin was another of George Soros' bought and paid for D.A.s whose main job was to turn thugs and criminals back on the streets to create even more chaos. Boudin was raised by Weather Underground members, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. His mother, Kathy Boudin served 22 years in prison and his father, David Gilbert will spend the rest of his days in prison.
Chesa Boudin was heavily financed by communist agitator George Soros, who's ultimate plan is to create chaos and destruction to America.
Who else is sick of these fucking commies being called "progressive"?
-jcr
Who else is sick of these commies continuing to draw breath?