Honest question, do we know why crime isn’t being prosecuted anymore?
I’ve noticed where I live this definitely seems to be the case and has a two fold effect, police aren’t even bothering to enforce laws because when they do the city/county refuses to prosecute and then criminals are getting wise to this and escalating their crimes. Previously where I live there would be violent crimes but generally in the early hours (2-4am) but in the last 5 years those same crimes have been happening more and more during the normal daytime hours (8am-7pm)
I'm not qualified to answer, but I regularly hear the following in the US:
- Not enough (LE|DA|jail) funding or staffing or space.
- "We want to focus on violent crimes". I have a whole rant about this, watching violent criminals/rapists going through revolving doors.
- Use of diversion and "restorative justice" programs, which clearly do not work for certain classes of criminals with very long rap sheets, but here we are.
> Use of diversion and "restorative justice" programs, which clearly do not work for certain classes of criminals with very long rap sheets, but here we are.
But they clearly work on others, so they’re probably fine.
> Not enough (LE|DA|jail) funding or staffing or space
This is a solvable problem if you’re willing to pay taxes on it. I think it’s a good thing because newer facilities and more staff probably leads to more humane treatment of prone in jail. We could also stop routinely jailing people who are awaiting trial, too.
> Not enough (LE|DA|jail) funding or staffing or space.
How is it possible that there isn't enough funding/staffing? Budgets have increased, ballooned beyond inflation in many cases they are the biggest line item in a city's budget.
There's a lot here to unpack - and it's incredibly nuanced.
Crime in most countries is on the decline, there have been "blips" or "spikes", but the reality is that crime is decreasing.
When people talk about communities not being policed, there's also multiple things at play - partly it's perception, which is subjective, and not very reliable (back in my dayyyyyy), and partly it's about focus.
As for prosecution - most countries are realising that prosecution leading to incarceration is counter productive - as the GP touched on, prison becomes a University for criminals, as well as a record being prohibitive in getting individuals "on the right track" - that is, they become more isolated and excluded, leaving them with fewer choices when it comes to behaviour.
I'm middle aged, and for my entire life, the same drum has been beaten - crime is rising, children don't respect their elders, youth are getting away with crime, there should be harsher punishments, and so on.
But the hard facts have shown otherwise (as to /why/ crime is dropping, that's a genuine subject for debate, for example the removal of lead in petrol is now thought to be one of the key reasons that violent crime is dropping)
This is the problem with assuming stats == reality. The ground reality often does not match the overall stats.
Overall, crime seems to be decreasing. But this doesn’t help in areas like mine, where the population is growing, taxes are increasing, and crime is rising, yet budgets for adequate LE/justice resources seem to be decreasing or not keeping pace with crime growth. This seems to be fairly common in growing areas of the western US.
But.... you can get statistics on anything you like, if you are prepared to fund (or defund) them. If you pay to see the relation between crime and how many cats there are in a neighbourhood, you can get that! Ie statistics themselves are part of the game.
Given that you can just throw money at the solution you want to engineer, and create the illusion of science, perhaps believing nothing is a better position to be in. At least you're not buying into what is essentially just another avenue of corporate or governance marketing.
And sorry for bringing information to your attention. Just wait till you hear about how corporates fund law.
I'm presuming that is the case, because you are questioning my straightforward and obvious suggestion that funding by corporations can provide whatever statistics you like. Feel free to explain your actual position if you want.
You are putting words in my mouth. And not answering anything.
I made a statement, have defended it, asked your position, and in order to sign off with a bad faith message you put words in my mouth (that I admitted my logic has no basis in fact).
I presumed based on your complete and utter disregard for facts, logic, and scientific data, that it was all you understood, and it appears i was correct.
It's intentional on the part of the prosecutors, and the billionaire who funds their campaigns. I don't know what their actual motivations are--probably some combination of ideological derangement and ulterior motive. They just don't believe in prosecuting most ordinary criminals.
Ok, I watched the video, and it’s not at all as you describe. Some guy walks closely by the bodyguard, and the bodyguard responds by shoving them through a display stand of products and onto the ground. The bodyguard was clearly the instigator of violence.
Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.
At the 0:10s mark of the video, the ex-stabber makes a move on the mayor and gets in the bodyguard's face, trading words. The SFChronicle reporter noted that critical detail you've overlooked.
Seeing the threat depends on one's bias. The mob that hates police and/or the mayor (he's jewish, billionaire, etc) can't see it, because all violence is supposedly the system's fault. Verbal threats are only real if the system does it.
For me, I lived next to the Tenderloin for two years & was threatened at knife-point by a nearby homeless. I think the risk warrants the shove. Maybe if the bodyguard hadn't shoved, the mayor would be fine. Or maybe the mob would have been much, much happier that day.
I’ll repeat my point that a good bodyguard stops shit rather than starting it. That idiot meatsack shouldn’t have been let anywhere near a bodyguard job. He failed at every aspect of the role, including getting his ass kicked.
Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.
Just "SF stabber mayor" would have been enough; it's fine to admit you were just extremely lazy and quick to jump to dismiss GP's claim, and apologize. It was major ish news.
Perhaps the police should not have earned the label if they didn't want it applied.
The problem is the police and the State are allies in the end, and the State under liberal democracy is supposed to be the mechanism by which the police are reformed / reigned in. Now you get insanities like governors sending in police and national guard to support a federal invasion force to defend a concentration camp the locals are protesting against.
I’ve noticed where I live this definitely seems to be the case and has a two fold effect, police aren’t even bothering to enforce laws because when they do the city/county refuses to prosecute and then criminals are getting wise to this and escalating their crimes. Previously where I live there would be violent crimes but generally in the early hours (2-4am) but in the last 5 years those same crimes have been happening more and more during the normal daytime hours (8am-7pm)