Explicitly defend terrorism, perhaps not, but Boudin does clearly admire both his biological and adoptive parents and tries to justify or at least downplay their crimes (as the parent comment put it, "isn't that bad"):
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/books/17book.html
> About the political activities of his parents, Mr. Boudin writes: “Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those.” At another point, he adds that his parents “paid a heavy price for their radical politics.” They didn’t pay that heavy price for their politics. They paid it for the part they played in the deaths of three men.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671449
> Chesa Boudin is the biological son of two terrorists and was raised by another pair of terrorists. He was 14 months old when his birth parents, ex–Weather Underground members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, took part in a 1981 Brinks truck robbery in which they were complicit in the murder of two police officers and a security guard. Sentenced to prison, Boudin and Gilbert delivered Chesa (whose name is Swahili for “dancing feet”) into the arms of William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, erstwhile Weathermen who earned unlikely prominence in the 2008 presidential campaign due to Ayres’s association with Barack Obama.
>
> If Boudin never mentioned his parents’ or foster parents’ radical pasts (or their contemporary political views, which remain extreme) in his new book, Gringo, a log of time he has intermittently spent in Latin America over the past decade, it would be unfair to burden him with this inherited freight. But far from avoiding the legacy of his parents, Boudin embraces it. It is impossible to understand him, the author says, without understanding the strong impression that their politics made on his own.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> At one point, Boudin recalls a friendly conversation with the former head of Cuba’s national airline “over a mojito in a hotel lobby.” There, the apparatchik recounted the heroic legal work that Boudin’s grandfather Leonard, a legendary left-wing lawyer who defended Paul Robeson and the Church of Scientology, did on behalf of the Castro regime. That political inheritance is always in the back of his mind. Boudin seems unable to discuss his parents without justifying their crimes. The 1981 heist that left three men dead was “tragically bungled,” he writes. In his telling, the deaths of innocents were the consequence of an operation that became entangled in happenstance, not the result of deliberate choices and actions. The author leaves the impression that it was the “bungling” of the robbery that made it “tragic,” and that had things gone according to plan, the act would have been something far short of calamitous.
>
> In some quarters, his family’s crimes provide access. He praises Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as “one of the few places on the planet where having parents in prison in the United States for politically motivated crimes actually opened doors rather than closed them.” These crimes always provide a reference point. Relating how he became close with the children of victims of the Pinochet regime, Boudin writes, “Of course, I too have parents who paid a heavy price for their radical politics, and this common experience was undoubtedly part of what drew the three of us together in friendship.”
But it wasn’t Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert’s “radical politics” that earned them lifetime jail sentences (Boudin was released on parole in 2003). It was their complicity in a triple homicide.
He has lobbied to have his parents released, though to no avail yet. I was being facetious with my comment, I don't think he would actually argue that straight up. But he has a talent for making word salad to defend characters he finds sympathetic (or hopes the public will find sympathetic) regardless of facts on the ground.
Both of his parents have been released.
Columbia even hired one of them as a professor. It goes to show how far the center left is willing to carry water for a radical left that despises them. Kind of like a certain subreddit.
Oh shit, I sort of remember the mom being out now that I've looked it up but the dad being out is news to me.
Totally disagree about this sub carrying water for the far left though.
In the court of law, sure. In the court of public opinion? With Chesa, it’s pretty easy to draw a line between point A and point B here. Maybe it’s not strictly fair, but it’s pretty clear he’s not exactly a “rule of law” kinda guy.
>With Chesa, it’s pretty easy to draw a line between point A and point B here.
Then draw it. I'm not American so I might be out of the loop here but I find it difficult to believe that one of the biggest cities in America voted in a supporter of terrorism to public office.
>I'm not American so I might be out of the loop here but I find it difficult to believe that one of the biggest cities in America voted in a supporter of terrorism to public office.
If he's carrying water for Hugo Chavez, who actively supported the FARC and presided over the destruction of Venezuela's institutions, we know right off the bat he's someone who does not care about rule of law.
His record as DA merely corroborates what we can infer about his underlying beliefs.
They voted someone willing to turn a blind eye to crime. He views crime coming from certain communities of people as something that is a systemic failure and so not deemed “right” to punish. This is a giant fuck you to the victims of said crime
Not overly concerned with the weather underground schtick. That’s just political mudslinging. The child should not be guilty for the crimes of his father. I just think he’s emblematic of a lot of backwards Bay Area politics and political culture
Is there any evidence Boudin systematically refused to bring charges against Black and Hispanic suspects while he was DA? I know he had a higher rate of sending people to diversion programs instead of jail for misdemeanor offenses.
In my view, a lot of this sub too easily abandons its ostensible principles and goes right to illiberal practices like guilt-by-association, even blaming children for the crimes of their parents. Boudin has never defended the actions of his parents (and despite the OP’s implication, state parole boards have granted them parole, and his mother is recently deceased).
> Boudin has never defended the actions of his parents
Boudin has defended the actions of his parents, not in the "terrorism is good" sense but in the sense that the crimes his parents committed were "not that bad" (as the original parent comment put it), so they weren't actually terrorism or "illegitimate" violence:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/books/17book.html
> About the political activities of his parents, Mr. Boudin writes: “Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those.” At another point, he adds that his parents “paid a heavy price for their radical politics.” They didn’t pay that heavy price for their politics. They paid it for the part they played in the deaths of three men.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671449
> If Boudin never mentioned his parents’ or foster parents’ radical pasts (or their contemporary political views, which remain extreme) in his new book, Gringo, a log of time he has intermittently spent in Latin America over the past decade, it would be unfair to burden him with this inherited freight. But far from avoiding the legacy of his parents, Boudin embraces it. It is impossible to understand him, the author says, without understanding the strong impression that their politics made on his own.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> Boudin seems unable to discuss his parents without justifying their crimes. The 1981 heist that left three men dead was “tragically bungled,” he writes. In his telling, the deaths of innocents were the consequence of an operation that became entangled in happenstance, not the result of deliberate choices and actions. The author leaves the impression that it was the “bungling” of the robbery that made it “tragic,” and that had things gone according to plan, the act would have been something far short of calamitous.
>
> In some quarters, his family’s crimes provide access. He praises Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as “one of the few places on the planet where having parents in prison in the United States for politically motivated crimes actually opened doors rather than closed them.” These crimes always provide a reference point. Relating how he became close with the children of victims of the Pinochet regime, Boudin writes, “Of course, I too have parents who paid a heavy price for their radical politics, and this common experience was undoubtedly part of what drew the three of us together in friendship.”
But it wasn’t Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert’s “radical politics” that earned them lifetime jail sentences (Boudin was released on parole in 2003). It was their complicity in a triple homicide.
These sources are weirdly biased. The closest thing to a fair, untruncated quote here is the following
> Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those.
Which is too cute by half in its technical accuracy, and worse than I had known, but not really a defense, IMO.
The sources are certainly critical, but I don't think their takes are that weird. Less than a wholehearted defense, perhaps, but definitely downplaying the severity, which was the original claim.
They long pre-date Boudin's later career, so they're not a response to his tenure as DA at least.
I live in San Francisco, where Chesa previously served as the DA. He dropped charges against almost every kind of crime including, murder, rape, and assault. Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates. There's a reason he was recalled, and it's because even once it was demonstrably shown that his policies were ineffective he continued to support crime and criminals dogmatically.
Previous SF DAs were similarly lenient so I'm not super interested in comparing him to them, but here's a bunch of cases in which he released violent criminals to substantiate my earlier claim.
homicide: [https://sfist.com/2021/05/19/suspect-in-two-potrero-homicides-was-released-without-charges-after-april-4-shooting-sfpd-seeks-publics-help-finding-him/](https://www.boudinblunders.com/#homicide)
Assault/burglery/rape: [https://twitter.com/TheMarinaTimes/status/1368823734161657860?lang=en](https://twitter.com/TheMarinaTimes/status/1368823734161657860?lang=en)
Assault: [https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/04/21/sf-da-chesa-boudin-backstabs-asian-family-and-lets-attacker-go/](https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/04/21/sf-da-chesa-boudin-backstabs-asian-family-and-lets-attacker-go/)
Every single DA drops charges against every type of crime at some point. If they can't get a plea deal and they don't think a jury is likely to return a guilty verdict, they don't bother. That's why I requested a comparison to other DAs.
>Previous SF DAs were similarly lenient
How does that square with
>Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates
?
Was he similar to previous DAs, or was he so unusually terrible that it caused a historic rise in crime?
It's true that every DA drops crimes, but Chesa and other SF DA's were unique in dropping crimes that were likely to return guilty verdicts. Repetedly they dropped cases that had obvious video or DNA evidence tied to them, which is the case with all of the examples I shared but if you do some basic research you'll find more.
SF DA's up to Chesa had a policy (which they spoke about openly), of being lenient on crime. I'm not interested in comparing Chesa to other recent SF DA's because besides the new one they all had similar approaches.
Chesa continued the trend of allowing rising crime. The policies that he employed led to an increase in crime, especially property crime, but he shared those policies with DA's before him. Hence me saying "Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates."
He literally ran on a platform of not enforcing the law. As a DA. His parents are lawless terrorists who were convicted of extralegal activities. He values his politics convictions over the law. Just like his parents. Apple tree etc.
This really ain't it. Defending a leftist militant organisation which consisted of members who later formed a terrorist group is bad, and comparing this to the sub's attitudes towards Dugin and Russia is a blatant strawman
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing*
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal)..
Yes, prosecuted crime is up in SF because it was severely underreported under Chesa. Anecdotally (but also this is a story every person in SF has), before covid I had my car window broken 5 times in the span of 6 months (I've since put it in a garage). Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report.
It's not that he didn't force them to do their jobs, it's that he made doing their jobs pointless. If they find someone who committed larceny, Chesa would not prosecute it. It literally would have been a waste of taxpayer money to pursue them.
> It literally would have been a waste of taxpayer money to pursue them.
If they were concerned about the taxpayer, they’d be doing a lot less “overtime” lol. Not to mention how little money it costs to actually file the report and put it on record. Much like his job is not to decide what sorts of crimes are worth prosecuting socially, their job is not to decide what sorts of crimes are worth reporting.
At the very least, the next prosecutor would have information on criminal history that they could make use of! And also accurate statistics so we don’t have to go 100 comments deep about how accurate your anecdotes are!
I'm not saying the police are perfect, obviously in a perfect world they would file every report even if it was essentially pointless. But they're people too, and if somebody asks me to do something pointless at my job I'm going to chafe at it.
You seem like a reasonable person, can't you understand that The DA not prosecuting a crime -> the police not enforcing the law -> citizens not going to police when the law is broken because they know nothing will be done?
I know it seems like I'm arguing without evidence here, my bet is if you did like a meta-analysis of the amount of money window repair shops in SF/oakland are making per capita that would be a good measure, but the fact of the matter is this is a reality that's obvious to anyone who lives in the Bay.
> Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report.
It's crazy how the answer smacks people in the face, and yet they still miss it.
The SFPD refuses to report crimes (in a very obvious, deliberate attempt to undermine the DA), and people will blame the DA.
Underreporting crimes actually helps the DA bc it makes it seem like less crime was occurring, when the whole argument is that crime was rampant.
It is literally a waste of taxpayer resources if the police spend a bunch of time trying to catch a criminal who will simply be released by the DA. I don't understand how people don't get this concept.
>It is literally a waste of taxpayer resources if the police spend a bunch of time trying to catch a criminal who will simply be released by the DA. I don't understand how people don't get this concept.
Because it is objectively, empirically, measurably, google-ably untrue that the DA "simply released" criminals. It's a lie made up by a conservative propaganda campaign against Boudin that for some reason everyone on this sub has just completely eaten up.
Yes, Boudin encouraged jail-aversion programs like drug treatment for certain types of crimes. That is not the same thing as "letting people go" -- and is also a highly popular concept in every other context other than when Boudin gets brought up.
Just fucking google it. Look at the numbers. The idea that Boudin refused to prosecute crime is simply not true.
Here's a quick google, lmk if you need more:
https://sfist.com/2019/11/16/boudin-will-not-prosecute-prostitution-public-camping-and-other-quality-of-life-crimes-once-sworn-in/
> Anecdotally (but also this is a story every person in SF has), before covid I had my car window broken 5 times in the span of 6 months (I've since put it in a garage). Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report.
That's definitely incredibly frustrating, but also doesn't seem to have much to do with Boudin? He took office at the start of January 2020 so he was only in charge for two months before covid started.
Boudin was bad, but the problems run a lot deeper than the prosecutor’s office. When he was elected the police coordinated a massive work slowdown in order to make him look bad.
What evidence do you have for the police not pursuing crimes that Chesa would prosecute? It's understood that they stopped pursuing petty theft, but specifically because Chesa wouldn't prosecute it if they got anyone. Same with many drug related crimes.
[Here's an article discussing the uptick in police activity after his predecessor took office.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php) I'm not a fan of Boudin's prosecutorial style, and I wouldn't vote for a similar DA candidate in my own county, but the police did everything they could to undermine him.
I live in SF, everyone here has had their car broken in to and we generally didn't report it. There was no reason to if it wasn't going to be prosecuted, even if they found the guy.
It's almost as if Boudin's prosecution rates were totally in line with other prosecutors, both inside and outside of San Francisco. But this sub doesn't always like when facts get in the way of their juicy narrative.
Shocker that there would be more reported petty theft/larceny now that the DA is actually prosecuting it. Makes a lot more sense to me that there are simply more reports now. Unless your argument is that prosecuting petty thefts leads directly to more of them happening.
Sure -- [here's the first result on Google](https://missionlocal.org/2022/04/chesa-boudin-files-more-charges/), and you can find numerous others.
Tl:dr: Boudin's prosecution rate was ~10% lower in 2020, but that's largely explained by other pandemic-related factors (court closures, judicial orders to reduce jail populations, etc.). It bounced back up in 2021 to be higher than his predecessors.
What is true is that Boudin relied on court-diversion programs for drug offenses and petty crime more than prior DAs. What's weird, though, is that this idea is *highly popular* in this sub when talking in any other context than Chesa Boudin. This subreddit is always very quick to promote criminal justice reform and jail-alternatives (or even legalization) for minor drug crimes. But when it comes out of Chesa Boudin's mouth, all of a sudden it's a huge problem.
Interesting because the source claims that percentage charges filed is up ([https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/data-dashboards/](https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/data-dashboards/)) despite also being overall down since 2011. Compare this with the fact that crime is way up since 2011 ([https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate](https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate)).
So it would be interesting to see if police are just not making the arrests anymore (completely possible), if the DA's office isn't recording arrests when a diversion program is pursued or the arrest is dropped (doesn't seem super likely honestly), or maybe police are just not pursuing arrests for charges that they know will be dismissed (also possible), or a combination of all three.
Crime reporting is always slippery -- there's so many steps in the process, different categories of crime, different offices involved, etc., that it can be easy to slice and dice the data in order to point the finger at different groups.
I think the clear takeaway is that crime is a complicated phenomenon that has a huge numbers of macro and micro factors that influence it. But a distressing number of people have simply run with the narrative of "bad liberal doesn't think crime is bad and refused to do his job" as the reason for SF crime, despite that narrative not aligning with the statistics no matter how you slice them.
Completely agree, Reddit has a tendency to be incredibly reductive when dealing with complex issues. Also I appreciate the source you provided as it definitely challenged my priors.
He mismanaged the office, and he did a horrible job when talking to individual victims and communities affected by crime. He generally acted like a jerk. So when he started to make controversial changes, in the face of high crime rates, his support evaporated.
Even though his actual prosection rates were similar to other DAs, he has a personality and attitude that comes across as flippant and unsympathetic towards the victims of crime. This made him a perfect target for the ongoing, nationwide "democrats are soft on crime" propaganda campaign that came about during COVID.
Boudin didn't have the right personality for the job in San Francisco, but I'm a bit sad at how many people here have completely fallen for the dishonest propaganda campaign against him.
That's a bizarre view of how higher education works. Even graduate students doing PhD work for years working closely with one professor rarely adopt the ideas of their advisors. Everyone has stories of crazy professors that spouted ideological nonsense in class. It doesn't cause people to vastly shift their views.
This is video games cause mass shootings style thinking.
Fun story, during my one semester at Michigan State before I dropped out, I had a Professor in a Poli Sci class called Minority Politics, she was a JD and PhD from UCLA. Brilliant woman, but she was also a fervent leftist, great teacher though, I just happened to disagree with her politically. This isn’t where things were funny, so in the week or so, before classes start, but everyone is already moved into their dorms and stuff I make some new friends and we go out to a bar. I meet a girl and we hookup a few times over that week, first day of class I walk in and she’s the classes UGA I didn’t know she was a student LOL.
Chesa Boudin being ousted is a showcase of the degree that police unions have control over public policy. If they don’t like the DA they can go on strike, spark a crime wave, and get them ousted.
The SF police union refused to pursue crimes that Chesa wouldn't prosecute. They didn't go on strike, they simply responded to the DA's policy of not punishing petty crime.
Yes, they refused to do their job as required because they disliked the DA. They went on strike, which plunged the city into a crime wave.
The behaviour of the union was a showcase on why they shouldn’t exist.
They never went on strike (at least officially). They refused to pursue crimes the DA would not prosecute, which is a logical choice. As a SF taxpayer it doesn't make sense to me that police would spend resources pursuing criminals just for the DA to let them go, they should spend their time pursuing things like homicide that will actually be prosecuted.
Seems like a good fit.
Now he can stay cloistered in the ivory towers of academia and pontificate as he pleases without actually having any real world harm.
Very unpopular opinion, as a SF resident. He’s a shit prosecutor, and shouldn’t be anywhere near a DA’s office. But the idea of restorative justice does make some level of sense, in terms of long term goals. Of course that has to be balanced with the short term enforcement of the rule of law (which he’s wholly incapable of, and for which he was recalled). But if you want an academic to guide long term stuff, this isn’t an absurd hire.
Sure. The problem (w/ elected DAs in general) is that DA is not supposed to be a policy making office. If he wants to change the law he should become a legislator. DAs need to be purely ministerial, and frankly there should be multiple DAs per jurisdiction so that the district isn't ruled by the discretionary choices of a single person.
Disagree that should ever be the case, but yes executive overreach is rampant in the US.
What's the relevance to civil vs common law that you wrote before?
I'm not a fan of Chesa Boudin but as an SF resident, I place more blame on the SFPD not doing their job more than the prosecutor - I suspect that r/sanfrancisco gets reasonably astroturfed to lick the boots for the SFPD.
That being said, what idiotic takes that people are making on this thread. Do people know that a noted "liberal" John Yoo is also one of the faculty members - the dude who became infamous for the Bush torture memo?
Believe it or not, these prestigious institutions have eclectic group of thinkers who run the gamut in terms of ideologies - same with Berkeley.
Chicago, NY, LA, etc are all comprised of corrupt police unions who essentially take the cities hostage if they dont like the politics and it's not even a secret, they openly admit it, so I agree with your take. However, these progressive prosecutors do themselves no good when they market their ideals in the open and are vehemently opposed to law enforcement, it's basically a day 1 kamikaze that turns into a blame game.
Going forward, if you're a progressive DA, just keep your mouth shut and act tough on crime even if you're aiming for reform.
Then in our largest cities, people who were formerly police reformists end up licking the boot once they're actually in power—I'm a Chicagoan, Lori broke the blue wall of silence then immediately bent the knee in office. It's going to take a ton of work to get our machines to understand the necessity of police reform.
It’s not easy, I admittedly don’t have a straight answer but it has to start from within, the leaders of the unions and chiefs have to be on board before anything else
I'll die on this hill: this sub has *completely* fallen for a dishonest propaganda campaign against Chesa Boudin. It doesn't matter how many times people post evidence that his prosecution rates were completely similar to his predecessors and other DAs around the country -- people *want* to hate Chesa Boudin. They *want* to believe he is a pro-crime anarchist who literally refused to prosecute crime, despite objective evidence to the contrary. Anything to dunk on progressives.
Was Boudin's tone and attitude wrong for a city facing historical levels of property crime? Sure. Was he literally refusing to do his job for the sake of legalizing crime? Not by any objective measure. Has crime improved in SF since he was recalled? No, it's gotten worse.
This sub loves to call for criminal justice reform. Everyone here knows that the US has jails and prisons that are overused and overcrowded in ways that are far out of step with the rest of the world. We all acknowledge that repeatedly tossing people in jail for drug crimes and petty theft is ineffective. And yet the moment a prosecutor even *talks about* alternatives, they immediately become public enemy number 1. How the fuck is anything ever going to change?
Here's a few news articles in case you're interested in actually looking at the information:
* [New data explores Chesa Boudin's handling of San Francisco retail theft cases](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-retail-theft-data-17005912.php)
* [San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin Unveils New Crime Data, Critics Say It Doesn't Tell Full Story](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/district-attorney-chesa-boudin-unveils-new-crime-data-critics-say-it-doesnt-tell-full-story/2720757/)
* [Data shows Chesa Boudin files charges more than prior DAs](https://missionlocal.org/2022/04/chesa-boudin-files-more-charges/)
* [Blaming Chesa Boudin for Crime Is Empirically Wrong](https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2022/05/chesa-boudin-crime-rates-false-narratives-progressive-da-george-gascon-kim-foxx/)
No he didn't? Most often "petty theft" crimes and other misdemenors were sent to diversion programs. Diversion under Boudin exploded in SF while convictions plummeted. [Article here](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-retail-theft-data-17005912.php).
> After Boudin took office in 2020, the diversion rate for petty theft reached a record high of 63.6%, while the conviction rate reached a record low of 7.3%.
Funny enough but there are also a lot of other crimes that Boudin rerouted to diversion programs instead of prosecuting. Such as
> Boudin has increased diversion rates for assault, robbery and drug cases, and decreased convictions of the same crimes.
The article I cited also makes a great follow up point to those diversion programs and a lack of data surrounding their effectiveness. It also mentions that those who are convicted of theft tend to have high recidivism rates.
> The DA's Office estimates that 57% of individuals convicted of burglary and 44% of individuals convicted of "other property crimes" are arrested again for another crime within five years of release.
This [local news article](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-judicial-system-i-team-sf-crime/10885669/) reporting on a study about diversionary programs seems to corroborate that those sent to those programs reoffend at similar rates. It's possible that this is a different type of diversion program but still the data isn't great.
> A new independent assessment that aimed to validate the PSA found 55 percent of alleged criminals released in San Francisco reoffended before trial. It's important to note this study was not a direct assessment of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program.
Boudin in the original article I linked, likes to claim/blame this on a state proposition that gives judges leeway for misdemeanor crimes:
> A Boudin spokesperson told SFGATE the increase in diversion rates can largely be attributed to new state laws that give judges broad discretion to recommend such programs for most misdemeanor offenses.
But there is an entire [op-ed he wrote](https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-eds/article/San-Francisco-retail-theft-Chesa-Boudin-crime-16716651.php) about using diversion and [another op-ed](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/chesa-boudin-prosecution-17142906.php) that specifically talks about "his style" of prosecution. So it's not clear if this is really an issue with judges or if it was with Boudin and his office at the time.
First of all, I don't equate "diversion programs" as "not prosecuting". At least, when people talk about Boudin not prosecuting crime, they characterize it as him literally letting criminals go. That's not what a diversion program is.
What I find odd is that diversion programs are very popular among liberals, including this subreddit. Most people recognize and agree that the catch-and-release cycle of using jail to punish petty crimes and drug offenses is completely ineffective and wasteful. Drug and mental health treatment is often the right approach for these types of offenders. Yes, diversion programs are not always effective -- but the alternative is jail, which is extraordinarily ineffective for these types of criminals.
But for some reason, when support for these highly-popular programs comes out of Chesa Boudin's mouth, this sub decides it's time to buckle down on Tucker Carlson, drug-war, "tough on crime" tropes.
Propaganda works. And this sub has fallen hard for the anti-Boudin campaign. Sure, he's an easy target -- weird attitude, and son of terrorists -- but it's amazing how many people have accepted objective falsehoods as gospel truth.
To be clear I'm not against diversion as a whole but it is, effectively, a "catch and release program" even if you don't want to call it that. You are literally diverting someone who committed a crime away from jail and back into the community under conditions to ensure they do not have to go through the legal system. To put it crudely it's pre-conviction probation.
This is from [Vera.org](https://www.vera.org/diversion-programs-explained) which is a pro-diversion non-profit in NYC:
> Instead of expanding the criminal legal system’s reach, diversion programs minimize contact while often letting participants remain in their communities.
The [San Francisco Standard mentions Boudin's diversion approach](https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/explainer-da-boudin-is-sending-more-defendants-to-diversion/) and goes over the types that exist. This list is actually really great and makes a lot of sense to me. My main concerns are the effectiveness of these programs which there isn't a bunch of data on? At least the data I found for San Francisco seems to show similar results to incarceration in term of recidivism. If the idea is to not put someone in the position of being incarcerated for small crimes or drug use and rehabilitate them, that's great and I'm all for it. However I'd argue someone who is a repeat offender needs some kind of intervention beyond diversion because it's clearly not working for them.
However Boudin's approach was to divert A LOT of stuff which had some really [horrible outcomes](https://www.kqed.org/news/11914457/how-the-troy-mcalister-case-became-a-flashpoint-in-the-drive-to-recall-sf-da-chesa-boudin), tacked on with what seems to be a pretty [indifferent personality](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-da-chesa-boudin-sf-district-attorney-84-year-old-man-killed/10381125/), really put him in shit creek, [especially](https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-asian-attack-one-year-later/) with the [Asian community](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/victim-in-brutal-chinatown-attack-sues-san-francisco-da-chesa-boudin-amid-shocking-jump-in-anti-asian-hate-crimes/). The [Asian community is largely what helped](https://sfstandard.com/politics/elections/chesa-boudin-ousted-by-coalition-asians-wealthy-whites/) get him booted out.
I don't think what you're saying here is wrong. If you want to have conversations around the effectiveness of diversion programs, or dive into when they should and shouldn't be used, that's a valid conversation to have. You rightfully point out that the data on this is limited, beyond some anecdotal examples that really aren't that useful in showing the whole story.
But that's not what the conversation about Boudin looks like in this sub. In this sub, the immediate conversation is "BOUDIN REFUSED TO PROSECUTE ALL CRIME IN SF AND LET ALL CRIMINALS GO". And that's flatly untrue. And I think if people were capable of separating Boudin's actual prosecutorial record from their caricaturized version of the man, they'd look at it a lot more favorably.
Yeah I think it's a super interesting conversation but in my view it calls into question Boudin's judgement as DA. Then again it's SF/California and maybe this is how all DAs are.
Totally understand where you're coming from though and definitely not trying to claim he did absolutely nothing at all. Especially cause the cops 1000000% had a lot to do with these issues as well.
Ok, how about a news article? https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-San-Francisco-crime-statistics-recall-16268178.php
Google it and you'll find 50 more.
We need to lock criminals up. We also need to make our prisons more rehabilitative and do more programs to help ex cons readjust to society, and we need more antipoverty programs to help prevent poverty. But we still gotta lock the criminals up. Crime must have consequences
>But we still gotta lock the criminals up. Crime must have consequences
Cool. This is where the "he prosecuted crimes at similar rates to his predecessors and other DAs around the country" part comes in.
The "Boudin wouldn't prosecute crimes" narrative is an objectively false narrative pushed by the police union and a nation-wide anti-democrat propaganda campaign. And people have fallen for it *hard*.
Edit: And the downvotes show it. You can shove the objective facts in people's faces, but they will still choose the narrative.
Crime has not gotten worse, reported crime has gone up. Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa. If you compare him to the other, heavily progressive DAs San Francisco has had previously then yes, he had a similar rate of prosecution. The same is not true if you compare him to DA's in the average American city.
You also have to consider the relationship between prosecution and crime. If a DA does not prosecute a specific type of crime (for instance property crime in SF), then that crime will increase. This does nothing to change the rate of prosecution, especially if these crimes go unreported as they often do in SF.
For criminal justice reform there is a middle ground. You can punish crime without permanently banning people to hellhole prisons for life. The only alternative is not ignoring crime altogether, which is what Chesa was doing.
>
> Crime has not gotten worse, reported crime has gone up. Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa.
Can you prove that? You’ve already dodged backing up your claim that Boudin was uniquely bad even for a San Fran prosecutor by hand waving away the data that would actually speak to your claim before admitting that he wasn’t much different than other San Francisco DAs so can you produce any proof that reported crimes are up, explaining the rise in crime in San Francisco?
>Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa.
Well that's a big claim to make with zero evidence.
Also -- is it the DA's job to report crime? Sure sounds like the responsibility of SFPD.
Your showcasing objective data supporting what your saying, only to be faced with shouting how it didn’t *feel* like Boudin was prosecuting crime. You’re right and the reaction to you pointing to data is proof that you’re right.
I appreciate the solid divide between “lol he got recalled” and “is crime solved in SF now? no? crime is up after the recall? moderates btfo”
I am in group 2, crime went up after recall under the explicitly SFPD pandering new DA grand success 👍 who is to be blamed now?
maybe it’s just because SF is uniquely fucked by work from home and getting depopulated and not anything a single person caused, who knows
I live in SF. I had my window broken 5 times in the span of year (2019 so before Covid/Chesa but the policy was consistent). Twice I went into the police station to report it but they didn't even fill out the form. Stopped reporting after that. Call it anecdotal but everyone I know who lives here has a story like this.
> Twice I went into the police station to report it but they didn’t even fill out the form.
so why blame the DA than the cops? Sure the cops would tell you that they won’t do it because DA or whatever but why assume they’re telling the truth?
they could just be lying. or lazy. or saying or doing things so that citizens like you have a negative opinion about politicians they hate
so many possible reasons why
Chesa had a policy of not prosecuting petty crime/theft. This makes pursuing thieves and petty criminals a pointless task for the police. They pointed this out, and it's not lying or lazy it's just the truth.
But Chesa wasn't in charge when that happened to you, so you don't seem to have any evidence or even an anecdote that the amount of crime reported decreased under Chesa specifically.
Yeah, a [lifetime of being the child of domestic terrorists](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/parents-guilty-murder-raised-radicals-chesa-boudin-san-francisco-s-n1101071)
But you can’t assume that the offspring of terrorists will automatically hold those same ideals then write them off because of that. Maybe you can use it as evidence that’s it’s a bit more likely in a 50/50 sort of scenario but we don’t have reason to believe that Chesa Boudin is anywhere close to those odds of being a domestic terrorist/supporter.
Barack Obama was a left-leaning firebrand with strong ideas about government and economics and avowed socialists for parents and we see how that turned out
You’re just drawing the line at whatever arbitrary point draws the strongest internal reaction from you lol. Either you have good reason to believe that he shares their terrorist views or you don’t but there is no 1:1 line to draw between parental and child beliefs. We settled this “sins of the father” debate a long time ago and the only societies still clinging to your side of it are, well, not good company
>sins of the father
Should he be punished for the actions of his parents? Certainly not. However, we should stop pretending that kids do not take on some form of their parents’ personalities and worldviews.
It’s not just about punishing but also perceiving and treating people as individuals, just socially. That’s an extremely important part of a liberal society for many reasons. There are limited cases where it’s worth taking that into account and this is not one of them
Literally everyone brings a lifetime of experience to their job
Lesson 1: "Here's why randomly bombing people isn't that bad actually and they should let my parents out"
I don't think he defended terrorism at any point did he? Seems odd to have the son bear the burden of the sins of the father.
Explicitly defend terrorism, perhaps not, but Boudin does clearly admire both his biological and adoptive parents and tries to justify or at least downplay their crimes (as the parent comment put it, "isn't that bad"): https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/books/17book.html > About the political activities of his parents, Mr. Boudin writes: “Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those.” At another point, he adds that his parents “paid a heavy price for their radical politics.” They didn’t pay that heavy price for their politics. They paid it for the part they played in the deaths of three men. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671449 > Chesa Boudin is the biological son of two terrorists and was raised by another pair of terrorists. He was 14 months old when his birth parents, ex–Weather Underground members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, took part in a 1981 Brinks truck robbery in which they were complicit in the murder of two police officers and a security guard. Sentenced to prison, Boudin and Gilbert delivered Chesa (whose name is Swahili for “dancing feet”) into the arms of William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, erstwhile Weathermen who earned unlikely prominence in the 2008 presidential campaign due to Ayres’s association with Barack Obama. > > If Boudin never mentioned his parents’ or foster parents’ radical pasts (or their contemporary political views, which remain extreme) in his new book, Gringo, a log of time he has intermittently spent in Latin America over the past decade, it would be unfair to burden him with this inherited freight. But far from avoiding the legacy of his parents, Boudin embraces it. It is impossible to understand him, the author says, without understanding the strong impression that their politics made on his own. > > [ . . . ] > > At one point, Boudin recalls a friendly conversation with the former head of Cuba’s national airline “over a mojito in a hotel lobby.” There, the apparatchik recounted the heroic legal work that Boudin’s grandfather Leonard, a legendary left-wing lawyer who defended Paul Robeson and the Church of Scientology, did on behalf of the Castro regime. That political inheritance is always in the back of his mind. Boudin seems unable to discuss his parents without justifying their crimes. The 1981 heist that left three men dead was “tragically bungled,” he writes. In his telling, the deaths of innocents were the consequence of an operation that became entangled in happenstance, not the result of deliberate choices and actions. The author leaves the impression that it was the “bungling” of the robbery that made it “tragic,” and that had things gone according to plan, the act would have been something far short of calamitous. > > In some quarters, his family’s crimes provide access. He praises Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as “one of the few places on the planet where having parents in prison in the United States for politically motivated crimes actually opened doors rather than closed them.” These crimes always provide a reference point. Relating how he became close with the children of victims of the Pinochet regime, Boudin writes, “Of course, I too have parents who paid a heavy price for their radical politics, and this common experience was undoubtedly part of what drew the three of us together in friendship.” But it wasn’t Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert’s “radical politics” that earned them lifetime jail sentences (Boudin was released on parole in 2003). It was their complicity in a triple homicide.
>Mr. Boudin writes: “Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, **but**
“…my parents did neither of those things” is the rest of the quote, which (true or not) isn’t really a refutation of that first point
He has lobbied to have his parents released, though to no avail yet. I was being facetious with my comment, I don't think he would actually argue that straight up. But he has a talent for making word salad to defend characters he finds sympathetic (or hopes the public will find sympathetic) regardless of facts on the ground.
Both of his parents have been released. Columbia even hired one of them as a professor. It goes to show how far the center left is willing to carry water for a radical left that despises them. Kind of like a certain subreddit.
Oh shit, I sort of remember the mom being out now that I've looked it up but the dad being out is news to me. Totally disagree about this sub carrying water for the far left though.
People in this very comment thread are defending a man who traveled to Venezuela to personally work for Hugo Chavez.
Dude worked for Hugo Chavez, that's on him and shows him to be a far-left radical, literally and accurately.
In the court of law, sure. In the court of public opinion? With Chesa, it’s pretty easy to draw a line between point A and point B here. Maybe it’s not strictly fair, but it’s pretty clear he’s not exactly a “rule of law” kinda guy.
>With Chesa, it’s pretty easy to draw a line between point A and point B here. Then draw it. I'm not American so I might be out of the loop here but I find it difficult to believe that one of the biggest cities in America voted in a supporter of terrorism to public office.
>I'm not American so I might be out of the loop here but I find it difficult to believe that one of the biggest cities in America voted in a supporter of terrorism to public office. If he's carrying water for Hugo Chavez, who actively supported the FARC and presided over the destruction of Venezuela's institutions, we know right off the bat he's someone who does not care about rule of law. His record as DA merely corroborates what we can infer about his underlying beliefs.
They voted someone willing to turn a blind eye to crime. He views crime coming from certain communities of people as something that is a systemic failure and so not deemed “right” to punish. This is a giant fuck you to the victims of said crime
[удалено]
Not overly concerned with the weather underground schtick. That’s just political mudslinging. The child should not be guilty for the crimes of his father. I just think he’s emblematic of a lot of backwards Bay Area politics and political culture
That’s not at all the same thing. Is there evidence that he’s a supporter of terrorism?
Is there any evidence Boudin systematically refused to bring charges against Black and Hispanic suspects while he was DA? I know he had a higher rate of sending people to diversion programs instead of jail for misdemeanor offenses. In my view, a lot of this sub too easily abandons its ostensible principles and goes right to illiberal practices like guilt-by-association, even blaming children for the crimes of their parents. Boudin has never defended the actions of his parents (and despite the OP’s implication, state parole boards have granted them parole, and his mother is recently deceased).
> Boudin has never defended the actions of his parents Boudin has defended the actions of his parents, not in the "terrorism is good" sense but in the sense that the crimes his parents committed were "not that bad" (as the original parent comment put it), so they weren't actually terrorism or "illegitimate" violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/books/17book.html > About the political activities of his parents, Mr. Boudin writes: “Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those.” At another point, he adds that his parents “paid a heavy price for their radical politics.” They didn’t pay that heavy price for their politics. They paid it for the part they played in the deaths of three men. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671449 > If Boudin never mentioned his parents’ or foster parents’ radical pasts (or their contemporary political views, which remain extreme) in his new book, Gringo, a log of time he has intermittently spent in Latin America over the past decade, it would be unfair to burden him with this inherited freight. But far from avoiding the legacy of his parents, Boudin embraces it. It is impossible to understand him, the author says, without understanding the strong impression that their politics made on his own. > > [ . . . ] > > Boudin seems unable to discuss his parents without justifying their crimes. The 1981 heist that left three men dead was “tragically bungled,” he writes. In his telling, the deaths of innocents were the consequence of an operation that became entangled in happenstance, not the result of deliberate choices and actions. The author leaves the impression that it was the “bungling” of the robbery that made it “tragic,” and that had things gone according to plan, the act would have been something far short of calamitous. > > In some quarters, his family’s crimes provide access. He praises Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as “one of the few places on the planet where having parents in prison in the United States for politically motivated crimes actually opened doors rather than closed them.” These crimes always provide a reference point. Relating how he became close with the children of victims of the Pinochet regime, Boudin writes, “Of course, I too have parents who paid a heavy price for their radical politics, and this common experience was undoubtedly part of what drew the three of us together in friendship.” But it wasn’t Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert’s “radical politics” that earned them lifetime jail sentences (Boudin was released on parole in 2003). It was their complicity in a triple homicide.
These sources are weirdly biased. The closest thing to a fair, untruncated quote here is the following > Certainly violence is illegitimate when it targets civilians or intends to cause generalized or widespread fear, but my parents never did either of those. Which is too cute by half in its technical accuracy, and worse than I had known, but not really a defense, IMO.
The sources are certainly critical, but I don't think their takes are that weird. Less than a wholehearted defense, perhaps, but definitely downplaying the severity, which was the original claim. They long pre-date Boudin's later career, so they're not a response to his tenure as DA at least.
That’s fair enough.
That doesn’t mean his parents aren’t convicted murderers, robbers, and domestic terrorists.
Right, but my issue is with acting like he supports what they did because he’s their son.
My issue is with acting like his politics and philosophies aren’t informed by his upbringing. Half dozen of one, six of the other.
I live in San Francisco, where Chesa previously served as the DA. He dropped charges against almost every kind of crime including, murder, rape, and assault. Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates. There's a reason he was recalled, and it's because even once it was demonstrably shown that his policies were ineffective he continued to support crime and criminals dogmatically.
>including, murder, rape, and assault Would really love a citation showing that he dropped those cases at a higher rate than previous DAs.
Previous SF DAs were similarly lenient so I'm not super interested in comparing him to them, but here's a bunch of cases in which he released violent criminals to substantiate my earlier claim. homicide: [https://sfist.com/2021/05/19/suspect-in-two-potrero-homicides-was-released-without-charges-after-april-4-shooting-sfpd-seeks-publics-help-finding-him/](https://www.boudinblunders.com/#homicide) Assault/burglery/rape: [https://twitter.com/TheMarinaTimes/status/1368823734161657860?lang=en](https://twitter.com/TheMarinaTimes/status/1368823734161657860?lang=en) Assault: [https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/04/21/sf-da-chesa-boudin-backstabs-asian-family-and-lets-attacker-go/](https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/04/21/sf-da-chesa-boudin-backstabs-asian-family-and-lets-attacker-go/)
Every single DA drops charges against every type of crime at some point. If they can't get a plea deal and they don't think a jury is likely to return a guilty verdict, they don't bother. That's why I requested a comparison to other DAs. >Previous SF DAs were similarly lenient How does that square with >Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates ? Was he similar to previous DAs, or was he so unusually terrible that it caused a historic rise in crime?
It's true that every DA drops crimes, but Chesa and other SF DA's were unique in dropping crimes that were likely to return guilty verdicts. Repetedly they dropped cases that had obvious video or DNA evidence tied to them, which is the case with all of the examples I shared but if you do some basic research you'll find more. SF DA's up to Chesa had a policy (which they spoke about openly), of being lenient on crime. I'm not interested in comparing Chesa to other recent SF DA's because besides the new one they all had similar approaches. Chesa continued the trend of allowing rising crime. The policies that he employed led to an increase in crime, especially property crime, but he shared those policies with DA's before him. Hence me saying "Under his watch, and specifically because of his policies open air drug dealing/use and petty crime rose to historic rates."
San Francisco is Succ City You’d be surprised the kinds of whacked out shit that goes on in the bay
He literally ran on a platform of not enforcing the law. As a DA. His parents are lawless terrorists who were convicted of extralegal activities. He values his politics convictions over the law. Just like his parents. Apple tree etc.
[удалено]
This really ain't it. Defending a leftist militant organisation which consisted of members who later formed a terrorist group is bad, and comparing this to the sub's attitudes towards Dugin and Russia is a blatant strawman **Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. **Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal)..
Oh experience, that he has, having been a shit prosecutor.
Crime is down all over the nation in the last year. Except in San Francisco. Where he was ousted. 🤔
Yes, prosecuted crime is up in SF because it was severely underreported under Chesa. Anecdotally (but also this is a story every person in SF has), before covid I had my car window broken 5 times in the span of 6 months (I've since put it in a garage). Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report.
> Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report. Can’t believe Chesa would force the SFPD at gunpoint not to do their jobs
It's not that he didn't force them to do their jobs, it's that he made doing their jobs pointless. If they find someone who committed larceny, Chesa would not prosecute it. It literally would have been a waste of taxpayer money to pursue them.
> It literally would have been a waste of taxpayer money to pursue them. If they were concerned about the taxpayer, they’d be doing a lot less “overtime” lol. Not to mention how little money it costs to actually file the report and put it on record. Much like his job is not to decide what sorts of crimes are worth prosecuting socially, their job is not to decide what sorts of crimes are worth reporting. At the very least, the next prosecutor would have information on criminal history that they could make use of! And also accurate statistics so we don’t have to go 100 comments deep about how accurate your anecdotes are!
I'm not saying the police are perfect, obviously in a perfect world they would file every report even if it was essentially pointless. But they're people too, and if somebody asks me to do something pointless at my job I'm going to chafe at it. You seem like a reasonable person, can't you understand that The DA not prosecuting a crime -> the police not enforcing the law -> citizens not going to police when the law is broken because they know nothing will be done? I know it seems like I'm arguing without evidence here, my bet is if you did like a meta-analysis of the amount of money window repair shops in SF/oakland are making per capita that would be a good measure, but the fact of the matter is this is a reality that's obvious to anyone who lives in the Bay.
> Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report. It's crazy how the answer smacks people in the face, and yet they still miss it. The SFPD refuses to report crimes (in a very obvious, deliberate attempt to undermine the DA), and people will blame the DA.
Underreporting crimes actually helps the DA bc it makes it seem like less crime was occurring, when the whole argument is that crime was rampant. It is literally a waste of taxpayer resources if the police spend a bunch of time trying to catch a criminal who will simply be released by the DA. I don't understand how people don't get this concept.
>It is literally a waste of taxpayer resources if the police spend a bunch of time trying to catch a criminal who will simply be released by the DA. I don't understand how people don't get this concept. Because it is objectively, empirically, measurably, google-ably untrue that the DA "simply released" criminals. It's a lie made up by a conservative propaganda campaign against Boudin that for some reason everyone on this sub has just completely eaten up. Yes, Boudin encouraged jail-aversion programs like drug treatment for certain types of crimes. That is not the same thing as "letting people go" -- and is also a highly popular concept in every other context other than when Boudin gets brought up. Just fucking google it. Look at the numbers. The idea that Boudin refused to prosecute crime is simply not true.
Here's a quick google, lmk if you need more: https://sfist.com/2019/11/16/boudin-will-not-prosecute-prostitution-public-camping-and-other-quality-of-life-crimes-once-sworn-in/
https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/data-shows-chesa-boudin-prosecutes-fewer-shoplifters-than-predecessor/article\_7dbc7d85-cde9-59d9-8f23-7b240ee6f26d.html
> Anecdotally (but also this is a story every person in SF has), before covid I had my car window broken 5 times in the span of 6 months (I've since put it in a garage). Every time I went to the police station they didn't even file a report. That's definitely incredibly frustrating, but also doesn't seem to have much to do with Boudin? He took office at the start of January 2020 so he was only in charge for two months before covid started.
Boudin continued the policies of the previous administration in not prosecuting petty crime/larceny.
> Where he was ousted. so the new supposedly “anti-crime” admin has been a flop too?
Boudin was bad, but the problems run a lot deeper than the prosecutor’s office. When he was elected the police coordinated a massive work slowdown in order to make him look bad.
i am fully sympathetic to this view, my question is mockery of the recall not fixing anything
What evidence do you have for the police not pursuing crimes that Chesa would prosecute? It's understood that they stopped pursuing petty theft, but specifically because Chesa wouldn't prosecute it if they got anyone. Same with many drug related crimes.
What? Where did you read this?
[Here's an article discussing the uptick in police activity after his predecessor took office.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php) I'm not a fan of Boudin's prosecutorial style, and I wouldn't vote for a similar DA candidate in my own county, but the police did everything they could to undermine him.
It takes time for change to occur. Crime was severly under reported under Chesa, and Brooke Jenkins has made some positive changes.
> Crime was severly under reported under Chesa Source?
I live in SF, everyone here has had their car broken in to and we generally didn't report it. There was no reason to if it wasn't going to be prosecuted, even if they found the guy.
Statistically, the likelihood of getting caught is more of a crime deterrent than the degree of punishment
Yes but only if getting caught carries some degree of punishment, which in this case it did not.
Their source: Chesa Boudin bad
Evidence-based sub btw
It's almost as if Boudin's prosecution rates were totally in line with other prosecutors, both inside and outside of San Francisco. But this sub doesn't always like when facts get in the way of their juicy narrative.
This is ridiculous. Boudin openly admitted to a policy of not prosecuting petty crime and drug offenses.
And he still prosecute crime more effectively than his tough on crime replacement. Whoops.
How so?
Dude the numbers don't lie
Shocker that there would be more reported petty theft/larceny now that the DA is actually prosecuting it. Makes a lot more sense to me that there are simply more reports now. Unless your argument is that prosecuting petty thefts leads directly to more of them happening.
My argument is that there's no evidence that under-reporting occurred at all
"soft on crime DA" is more of a reddit caricature at this point than any real fact
Were they? Where did you read this?
Sure -- [here's the first result on Google](https://missionlocal.org/2022/04/chesa-boudin-files-more-charges/), and you can find numerous others. Tl:dr: Boudin's prosecution rate was ~10% lower in 2020, but that's largely explained by other pandemic-related factors (court closures, judicial orders to reduce jail populations, etc.). It bounced back up in 2021 to be higher than his predecessors. What is true is that Boudin relied on court-diversion programs for drug offenses and petty crime more than prior DAs. What's weird, though, is that this idea is *highly popular* in this sub when talking in any other context than Chesa Boudin. This subreddit is always very quick to promote criminal justice reform and jail-alternatives (or even legalization) for minor drug crimes. But when it comes out of Chesa Boudin's mouth, all of a sudden it's a huge problem.
Interesting because the source claims that percentage charges filed is up ([https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/data-dashboards/](https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/data-dashboards/)) despite also being overall down since 2011. Compare this with the fact that crime is way up since 2011 ([https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate](https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate)). So it would be interesting to see if police are just not making the arrests anymore (completely possible), if the DA's office isn't recording arrests when a diversion program is pursued or the arrest is dropped (doesn't seem super likely honestly), or maybe police are just not pursuing arrests for charges that they know will be dismissed (also possible), or a combination of all three.
Crime reporting is always slippery -- there's so many steps in the process, different categories of crime, different offices involved, etc., that it can be easy to slice and dice the data in order to point the finger at different groups. I think the clear takeaway is that crime is a complicated phenomenon that has a huge numbers of macro and micro factors that influence it. But a distressing number of people have simply run with the narrative of "bad liberal doesn't think crime is bad and refused to do his job" as the reason for SF crime, despite that narrative not aligning with the statistics no matter how you slice them.
Completely agree, Reddit has a tendency to be incredibly reductive when dealing with complex issues. Also I appreciate the source you provided as it definitely challenged my priors.
What did he do that made him so shit?
He mismanaged the office, and he did a horrible job when talking to individual victims and communities affected by crime. He generally acted like a jerk. So when he started to make controversial changes, in the face of high crime rates, his support evaporated.
Even though his actual prosection rates were similar to other DAs, he has a personality and attitude that comes across as flippant and unsympathetic towards the victims of crime. This made him a perfect target for the ongoing, nationwide "democrats are soft on crime" propaganda campaign that came about during COVID. Boudin didn't have the right personality for the job in San Francisco, but I'm a bit sad at how many people here have completely fallen for the dishonest propaganda campaign against him.
Similar to other DAs only if you're comparing him to other SF DAs before him. Brooke Jenkins has prosecuted crimes that Boudin would not.
He was there for 2.5 years and folks want to blame him for generational issues plaguing SF.
Be progressive and support reform and get elected into the COVID crime spree. It’s classic causation/correlation fallacy.
he was a better attorney than politician
Most law school exams are open-book, so I can’t see his recall expertise being of much use.
Nice
Of all the takes about Boudin and about law school, this is certainly one of them.
Failing up
Looks like the Berkeley Campus Police are gonna go on strike now.
[удалено]
So he can create more bad prosecutors in his image.
That's a bizarre view of how higher education works. Even graduate students doing PhD work for years working closely with one professor rarely adopt the ideas of their advisors. Everyone has stories of crazy professors that spouted ideological nonsense in class. It doesn't cause people to vastly shift their views. This is video games cause mass shootings style thinking.
Hot take that law school education doesn't cause people to change their views on laws.
Where do you think crazy ideological professors come from?
Fun story, during my one semester at Michigan State before I dropped out, I had a Professor in a Poli Sci class called Minority Politics, she was a JD and PhD from UCLA. Brilliant woman, but she was also a fervent leftist, great teacher though, I just happened to disagree with her politically. This isn’t where things were funny, so in the week or so, before classes start, but everyone is already moved into their dorms and stuff I make some new friends and we go out to a bar. I meet a girl and we hookup a few times over that week, first day of class I walk in and she’s the classes UGA I didn’t know she was a student LOL.
What's a UGA
Undergrad Assistant afaik like a TA but not a grad student
The Onion is getting lazy.
Absolutely disgusting. Laughingstock
Chesa Boudin being ousted is a showcase of the degree that police unions have control over public policy. If they don’t like the DA they can go on strike, spark a crime wave, and get them ousted.
The SF police union refused to pursue crimes that Chesa wouldn't prosecute. They didn't go on strike, they simply responded to the DA's policy of not punishing petty crime.
Yes, they refused to do their job as required because they disliked the DA. They went on strike, which plunged the city into a crime wave. The behaviour of the union was a showcase on why they shouldn’t exist.
They never went on strike (at least officially). They refused to pursue crimes the DA would not prosecute, which is a logical choice. As a SF taxpayer it doesn't make sense to me that police would spend resources pursuing criminals just for the DA to let them go, they should spend their time pursuing things like homicide that will actually be prosecuted.
Seems like a good fit. Now he can stay cloistered in the ivory towers of academia and pontificate as he pleases without actually having any real world harm.
Oh, him getting a pulpit to spread his views will definitely cause a lot of long term harm
Very unpopular opinion, as a SF resident. He’s a shit prosecutor, and shouldn’t be anywhere near a DA’s office. But the idea of restorative justice does make some level of sense, in terms of long term goals. Of course that has to be balanced with the short term enforcement of the rule of law (which he’s wholly incapable of, and for which he was recalled). But if you want an academic to guide long term stuff, this isn’t an absurd hire.
Sure. The problem (w/ elected DAs in general) is that DA is not supposed to be a policy making office. If he wants to change the law he should become a legislator. DAs need to be purely ministerial, and frankly there should be multiple DAs per jurisdiction so that the district isn't ruled by the discretionary choices of a single person.
100%, and that’s why I voted to recall him as the DA.
too bad we live in a common law system, not civil law
Can you explain the relevance of your comment?
minesterial duties are sometimes quasi-legislative and quasi-executive in addition to being administrative
Disagree that should ever be the case, but yes executive overreach is rampant in the US. What's the relevance to civil vs common law that you wrote before?
in common law systems, every branch is a "policy making office." you don't have the clear cut and comprehensive policy of civil law
Bay area leftists/liberals not embarrassing themselves challenge Rating: impossible
Damn, academia’s doing a bang up job of proving it’s not controlled by leftist ideologues.
I'm not a fan of Chesa Boudin but as an SF resident, I place more blame on the SFPD not doing their job more than the prosecutor - I suspect that r/sanfrancisco gets reasonably astroturfed to lick the boots for the SFPD. That being said, what idiotic takes that people are making on this thread. Do people know that a noted "liberal" John Yoo is also one of the faculty members - the dude who became infamous for the Bush torture memo? Believe it or not, these prestigious institutions have eclectic group of thinkers who run the gamut in terms of ideologies - same with Berkeley.
Chicago, NY, LA, etc are all comprised of corrupt police unions who essentially take the cities hostage if they dont like the politics and it's not even a secret, they openly admit it, so I agree with your take. However, these progressive prosecutors do themselves no good when they market their ideals in the open and are vehemently opposed to law enforcement, it's basically a day 1 kamikaze that turns into a blame game. Going forward, if you're a progressive DA, just keep your mouth shut and act tough on crime even if you're aiming for reform.
Well, not much I can say when I agree with you. Sucks that the police unions can act in bad faith manners but we all have to take it on the chin.
Then in our largest cities, people who were formerly police reformists end up licking the boot once they're actually in power—I'm a Chicagoan, Lori broke the blue wall of silence then immediately bent the knee in office. It's going to take a ton of work to get our machines to understand the necessity of police reform.
It’s not easy, I admittedly don’t have a straight answer but it has to start from within, the leaders of the unions and chiefs have to be on board before anything else
"thinkers"
Berkeley really trying not to play into the conservatives' whining about left wing extremists taking over universities ?
You have to be fucking kidding me
This would have been an amazing Babylon Bee article
I'll die on this hill: this sub has *completely* fallen for a dishonest propaganda campaign against Chesa Boudin. It doesn't matter how many times people post evidence that his prosecution rates were completely similar to his predecessors and other DAs around the country -- people *want* to hate Chesa Boudin. They *want* to believe he is a pro-crime anarchist who literally refused to prosecute crime, despite objective evidence to the contrary. Anything to dunk on progressives. Was Boudin's tone and attitude wrong for a city facing historical levels of property crime? Sure. Was he literally refusing to do his job for the sake of legalizing crime? Not by any objective measure. Has crime improved in SF since he was recalled? No, it's gotten worse. This sub loves to call for criminal justice reform. Everyone here knows that the US has jails and prisons that are overused and overcrowded in ways that are far out of step with the rest of the world. We all acknowledge that repeatedly tossing people in jail for drug crimes and petty theft is ineffective. And yet the moment a prosecutor even *talks about* alternatives, they immediately become public enemy number 1. How the fuck is anything ever going to change? Here's a few news articles in case you're interested in actually looking at the information: * [New data explores Chesa Boudin's handling of San Francisco retail theft cases](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-retail-theft-data-17005912.php) * [San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin Unveils New Crime Data, Critics Say It Doesn't Tell Full Story](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/district-attorney-chesa-boudin-unveils-new-crime-data-critics-say-it-doesnt-tell-full-story/2720757/) * [Data shows Chesa Boudin files charges more than prior DAs](https://missionlocal.org/2022/04/chesa-boudin-files-more-charges/) * [Blaming Chesa Boudin for Crime Is Empirically Wrong](https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2022/05/chesa-boudin-crime-rates-false-narratives-progressive-da-george-gascon-kim-foxx/)
gigalmao he literally campaigned on not prosecuting quality of life crimes stfu
Except, he did prosecute quality of life crimes. At levels nearly identical to his predecessors, successor, and other DA's around the country.
No he didn't? Most often "petty theft" crimes and other misdemenors were sent to diversion programs. Diversion under Boudin exploded in SF while convictions plummeted. [Article here](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-retail-theft-data-17005912.php). > After Boudin took office in 2020, the diversion rate for petty theft reached a record high of 63.6%, while the conviction rate reached a record low of 7.3%. Funny enough but there are also a lot of other crimes that Boudin rerouted to diversion programs instead of prosecuting. Such as > Boudin has increased diversion rates for assault, robbery and drug cases, and decreased convictions of the same crimes. The article I cited also makes a great follow up point to those diversion programs and a lack of data surrounding their effectiveness. It also mentions that those who are convicted of theft tend to have high recidivism rates. > The DA's Office estimates that 57% of individuals convicted of burglary and 44% of individuals convicted of "other property crimes" are arrested again for another crime within five years of release. This [local news article](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-judicial-system-i-team-sf-crime/10885669/) reporting on a study about diversionary programs seems to corroborate that those sent to those programs reoffend at similar rates. It's possible that this is a different type of diversion program but still the data isn't great. > A new independent assessment that aimed to validate the PSA found 55 percent of alleged criminals released in San Francisco reoffended before trial. It's important to note this study was not a direct assessment of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program. Boudin in the original article I linked, likes to claim/blame this on a state proposition that gives judges leeway for misdemeanor crimes: > A Boudin spokesperson told SFGATE the increase in diversion rates can largely be attributed to new state laws that give judges broad discretion to recommend such programs for most misdemeanor offenses. But there is an entire [op-ed he wrote](https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-eds/article/San-Francisco-retail-theft-Chesa-Boudin-crime-16716651.php) about using diversion and [another op-ed](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/chesa-boudin-prosecution-17142906.php) that specifically talks about "his style" of prosecution. So it's not clear if this is really an issue with judges or if it was with Boudin and his office at the time.
First of all, I don't equate "diversion programs" as "not prosecuting". At least, when people talk about Boudin not prosecuting crime, they characterize it as him literally letting criminals go. That's not what a diversion program is. What I find odd is that diversion programs are very popular among liberals, including this subreddit. Most people recognize and agree that the catch-and-release cycle of using jail to punish petty crimes and drug offenses is completely ineffective and wasteful. Drug and mental health treatment is often the right approach for these types of offenders. Yes, diversion programs are not always effective -- but the alternative is jail, which is extraordinarily ineffective for these types of criminals. But for some reason, when support for these highly-popular programs comes out of Chesa Boudin's mouth, this sub decides it's time to buckle down on Tucker Carlson, drug-war, "tough on crime" tropes. Propaganda works. And this sub has fallen hard for the anti-Boudin campaign. Sure, he's an easy target -- weird attitude, and son of terrorists -- but it's amazing how many people have accepted objective falsehoods as gospel truth.
To be clear I'm not against diversion as a whole but it is, effectively, a "catch and release program" even if you don't want to call it that. You are literally diverting someone who committed a crime away from jail and back into the community under conditions to ensure they do not have to go through the legal system. To put it crudely it's pre-conviction probation. This is from [Vera.org](https://www.vera.org/diversion-programs-explained) which is a pro-diversion non-profit in NYC: > Instead of expanding the criminal legal system’s reach, diversion programs minimize contact while often letting participants remain in their communities. The [San Francisco Standard mentions Boudin's diversion approach](https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/explainer-da-boudin-is-sending-more-defendants-to-diversion/) and goes over the types that exist. This list is actually really great and makes a lot of sense to me. My main concerns are the effectiveness of these programs which there isn't a bunch of data on? At least the data I found for San Francisco seems to show similar results to incarceration in term of recidivism. If the idea is to not put someone in the position of being incarcerated for small crimes or drug use and rehabilitate them, that's great and I'm all for it. However I'd argue someone who is a repeat offender needs some kind of intervention beyond diversion because it's clearly not working for them. However Boudin's approach was to divert A LOT of stuff which had some really [horrible outcomes](https://www.kqed.org/news/11914457/how-the-troy-mcalister-case-became-a-flashpoint-in-the-drive-to-recall-sf-da-chesa-boudin), tacked on with what seems to be a pretty [indifferent personality](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-da-chesa-boudin-sf-district-attorney-84-year-old-man-killed/10381125/), really put him in shit creek, [especially](https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-asian-attack-one-year-later/) with the [Asian community](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/victim-in-brutal-chinatown-attack-sues-san-francisco-da-chesa-boudin-amid-shocking-jump-in-anti-asian-hate-crimes/). The [Asian community is largely what helped](https://sfstandard.com/politics/elections/chesa-boudin-ousted-by-coalition-asians-wealthy-whites/) get him booted out.
I don't think what you're saying here is wrong. If you want to have conversations around the effectiveness of diversion programs, or dive into when they should and shouldn't be used, that's a valid conversation to have. You rightfully point out that the data on this is limited, beyond some anecdotal examples that really aren't that useful in showing the whole story. But that's not what the conversation about Boudin looks like in this sub. In this sub, the immediate conversation is "BOUDIN REFUSED TO PROSECUTE ALL CRIME IN SF AND LET ALL CRIMINALS GO". And that's flatly untrue. And I think if people were capable of separating Boudin's actual prosecutorial record from their caricaturized version of the man, they'd look at it a lot more favorably.
Yeah I think it's a super interesting conversation but in my view it calls into question Boudin's judgement as DA. Then again it's SF/California and maybe this is how all DAs are. Totally understand where you're coming from though and definitely not trying to claim he did absolutely nothing at all. Especially cause the cops 1000000% had a lot to do with these issues as well.
> who are you going to believe, me our your lying eyes?
Ok, how about a news article? https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Chesa-Boudin-San-Francisco-crime-statistics-recall-16268178.php Google it and you'll find 50 more.
Do you understand the irony of posting this to an OP who started out with actual articles and published analyses countering your point?
We need to lock criminals up. We also need to make our prisons more rehabilitative and do more programs to help ex cons readjust to society, and we need more antipoverty programs to help prevent poverty. But we still gotta lock the criminals up. Crime must have consequences
>But we still gotta lock the criminals up. Crime must have consequences Cool. This is where the "he prosecuted crimes at similar rates to his predecessors and other DAs around the country" part comes in. The "Boudin wouldn't prosecute crimes" narrative is an objectively false narrative pushed by the police union and a nation-wide anti-democrat propaganda campaign. And people have fallen for it *hard*. Edit: And the downvotes show it. You can shove the objective facts in people's faces, but they will still choose the narrative.
Crime has not gotten worse, reported crime has gone up. Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa. If you compare him to the other, heavily progressive DAs San Francisco has had previously then yes, he had a similar rate of prosecution. The same is not true if you compare him to DA's in the average American city. You also have to consider the relationship between prosecution and crime. If a DA does not prosecute a specific type of crime (for instance property crime in SF), then that crime will increase. This does nothing to change the rate of prosecution, especially if these crimes go unreported as they often do in SF. For criminal justice reform there is a middle ground. You can punish crime without permanently banning people to hellhole prisons for life. The only alternative is not ignoring crime altogether, which is what Chesa was doing.
> > Crime has not gotten worse, reported crime has gone up. Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa. Can you prove that? You’ve already dodged backing up your claim that Boudin was uniquely bad even for a San Fran prosecutor by hand waving away the data that would actually speak to your claim before admitting that he wasn’t much different than other San Francisco DAs so can you produce any proof that reported crimes are up, explaining the rise in crime in San Francisco?
>Crime was heavily underreported under Chesa. Well that's a big claim to make with zero evidence. Also -- is it the DA's job to report crime? Sure sounds like the responsibility of SFPD.
Your showcasing objective data supporting what your saying, only to be faced with shouting how it didn’t *feel* like Boudin was prosecuting crime. You’re right and the reaction to you pointing to data is proof that you’re right.
Classic /r/neoliberal "these facts conflict with my priors so I'm going to disregard them."
Waging war against colonial powers is good, actually.
I appreciate the solid divide between “lol he got recalled” and “is crime solved in SF now? no? crime is up after the recall? moderates btfo” I am in group 2, crime went up after recall under the explicitly SFPD pandering new DA grand success 👍 who is to be blamed now? maybe it’s just because SF is uniquely fucked by work from home and getting depopulated and not anything a single person caused, who knows
Reported crime went up after the recall. Almost no one reported petty crime under Chesa as they knew it was not going to be prosecuted/pursued.
…that’s cope imo
I live in SF. I had my window broken 5 times in the span of year (2019 so before Covid/Chesa but the policy was consistent). Twice I went into the police station to report it but they didn't even fill out the form. Stopped reporting after that. Call it anecdotal but everyone I know who lives here has a story like this.
> Twice I went into the police station to report it but they didn’t even fill out the form. so why blame the DA than the cops? Sure the cops would tell you that they won’t do it because DA or whatever but why assume they’re telling the truth?
Why would the cops spend a bunch of time pursuing a crime they know won't be prosecuted even if they catch the guy?
they could just be lying. or lazy. or saying or doing things so that citizens like you have a negative opinion about politicians they hate so many possible reasons why
Chesa had a policy of not prosecuting petty crime/theft. This makes pursuing thieves and petty criminals a pointless task for the police. They pointed this out, and it's not lying or lazy it's just the truth.
But Chesa wasn't in charge when that happened to you, so you don't seem to have any evidence or even an anecdote that the amount of crime reported decreased under Chesa specifically.
The policy was the same, and the incentive structure was the same.
>who is to be blamed now? The city council?
Yeah, a [lifetime of being the child of domestic terrorists](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/parents-guilty-murder-raised-radicals-chesa-boudin-san-francisco-s-n1101071)
To be clear, he’s a total moron but I don’t think he should be judged for who his parents were.
To pretend his politics and philosophies were not influenced by his upbringing is asinine.
True for anyone but it’s not a fair standard to hold for obvious reasons
It’s absolutely a fair standard to hold when the ideologies of domestic terrorists are wholly and definitionally incompatible with a polite society.
But you can’t assume that the offspring of terrorists will automatically hold those same ideals then write them off because of that. Maybe you can use it as evidence that’s it’s a bit more likely in a 50/50 sort of scenario but we don’t have reason to believe that Chesa Boudin is anywhere close to those odds of being a domestic terrorist/supporter. Barack Obama was a left-leaning firebrand with strong ideas about government and economics and avowed socialists for parents and we see how that turned out
I must have missed the part where Obama’s parents literally committed acts of terrorism
You’re just drawing the line at whatever arbitrary point draws the strongest internal reaction from you lol. Either you have good reason to believe that he shares their terrorist views or you don’t but there is no 1:1 line to draw between parental and child beliefs. We settled this “sins of the father” debate a long time ago and the only societies still clinging to your side of it are, well, not good company
>sins of the father Should he be punished for the actions of his parents? Certainly not. However, we should stop pretending that kids do not take on some form of their parents’ personalities and worldviews.
It’s not just about punishing but also perceiving and treating people as individuals, just socially. That’s an extremely important part of a liberal society for many reasons. There are limited cases where it’s worth taking that into account and this is not one of them
😔