"Progressive" Prosecutors

There were two interesting pieces, one in the Wall Street Journal and the other in the Los Angeles Times, on the topic of progressive District Attorneys.  In the WSJ, on 8/1/22, was an Op-Ed ("Why I Support Reform Prosecutors") by none other than George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who has successfully funded the campaigns of quite a few "progressive" prosecutors across the country.  In the LA Times was an editorial ("Gascon is an easy scapegoat") discussing the recall petition of LA County's district attorney.

The piece by Soros is filled with platitudes, yet lacking in any facts.  "Yet our system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe...If people trust the justice system, it will work.  And if the system works, public safety will improve."  How's that?  When criminals can say that the system is "fair," they will stop committing crimes?  I am not following the "logic."  

Soros:  "We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people."  What Soros fails to discuss is the rate at which different racial groups commit crime.  For example, for the year 2019, the FBI reported that blacks committed 55.9% of the homicides in the US, while accounting for only approximately 14% of the population.  Clearly, those numbers are going to account for increased arrest and incarceration rates for blacks.  

Soros asserts that the rise in crime can be attributed to an increase in mental illness as a result of young people being isolated as a result of the pandemic.  He also points to a "pullback in policing in the wake of public criminal justice reform protests."  Hmm.  He is clearly on to something, although he draws the wrong conclusions.  There is little doubt that there has been a "pullback in policing," as police have seen decreased support from the public and elected officials.  But then it's a vicious circle - elect soft on crime district attorneys and mayors, and the police curtail law enforcement.  Why would the police put themselves at risk, in terms of their own safety and freedom even, if the people they arrest are back out on the streets in a matter of hours.  All because left-wing politicians have instituted "no bail" reforms.

The LA Times is upset that there is a pending recall petition (assuming enough signatures qualify) of LA D.A. George Gascon.  The Times makes some rather bizarre assertions.  The editorial mentions the June 7 recall of progressive San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin.  Explains the Times:  "Boudin was a high-profile target of justice reform opponents, in part because his city is a leading bastion of progressive politics, and in part because his parents were convicted of killing police officers in the 1980's..."  The Times does not care to explain that, given those facts, how was it that Boudin was elected D.A. in 2019 in the first place?  Nor does the Times care to discuss the rather inconvenient fact that San Francisco, one of the most left-wing cities in the country, booted their progressive D.A. on June 7.  Might it be because even people on the left have no desire to be victims of crime.  

Here is something we can agree on:  "The increase in crime in Los Angeles County is real and deeply troubling..."  So much so that the LAPD has taken to advising people to be wary of the expensive cars they drive and jewelry they wear.  Yet, LA was always known for the rich and famous dressing and driving ostentatiously.  What happened?  

The Times:  "Yet the notion that it's the prosecutors - not the police, the mayor, county supervisors and other players or criminal laws and policies regarding health, economics, education - that control crime is fairly new and somewhat odd."  No one is disagreeing with the idea that left-wing elected officials, with their left-wing laws, play a role in increasing crime.  But let's not pretend it is "odd" for a D.A. to be blamed for increasing crime when he immediately instituted these policies:  an end to seeking the death penalty, ending the requirement of cash bail in many cases, eliminating sentence enhancement charges, and other changes.  

Yet, I regularly see on the local news family members, often minorities, of loved ones badly injured or killed, begging for the D.A. to throw the book at the perpetrators.  And then complaining when that does not happen.  What these left-wing D.A.'s, politicians and media people don't understand, is that minorities are the frequent victims of crime, and their family members want to see the perpetrators brought to justice.  They don't want these criminals back out on the streets.

What Soros and the Times editorial board also fail to mention is the success of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani became Mayor in 1994, following David Dinkins, who served from 1990 through 1993.  My recollection from that time is of the New York Times fretting over whether New York could ever bounce back after Dinkins left office.  But bounce back it did.  Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, instituted the "broken windows" theory of policing.  If you let the "minor" crimes go without punishment, if you let neighborhoods deteriorate with a few broken windows, then criminals will move on to more major crimes.  Giuliani cleaned up Times Square.  People moved back into New York City.  Businesses returned.  All honest citizens want the same thing - safe neighborhoods.  They don't want soft on crime prosecutors.  Only the left-wing fringe, and their supporters in the mainstream media, want that.