Where I live they don't even send police for non-injury accidents anymore. Even if there's a hit and run no police get sent.
Property crimes don't matter anymore. When my friends got their catalytic converters stolen the police never even bothered to show up. Taking statements may not get their cats back, but it goes towards building up a large enough case to justify a unit to handle it.
You are correct though. Our DA is a "soft on crime" type. As a result, all forms of criminal behavior have increased dramatically in the last several years.
SF recalled their supposedly "not hard on crime" DA, mostly because he offended the local Asian voters, but the new supposedly "hard on crime" DA in practice doesn't seem to be having much effect. Similarly Chesa didn't oversee Oakland or any other nearby areas but I've still seen people who live there blame things on him.
People generally have no idea how much crime there is. If you asked most people which of NYC and Oklahoma is safer they'd get it wrong whether or not they lived there.
No they recalled him because he was refusing to prosecute anyone for anything because he was mad that his terrorist parents were in jail for being terrorists.
There is a wide gap between liberal “people shouldn’t go to jail because they were on drugs while poor” and “no one should be prosecuted for anything”
Seattle just elected a "hard on crime" Republican prosecutor, who rode in on a wave of promises of prosecuting every misdemeanor, including the backlog (Her opponent was going to prioritize, and drop most of the backlog.)
She got into office, paid a lot of money to legal consultants, and a few months later, announced that she will be... Dropping the backlog of misdemeanors.
She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry. It’s not “giving up” rather declaring bankruptcy so you can focus on more current and serious crimes. This is what happens when you are passed a 3 year backlog from your predecessor.
> She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry.
She attacked that exact same line of reasoning when running for election.
Unsurprisingly, once actually elected, as everyone had said all along, it turned out to be the only way to go forward.
And, of course, the promised reductions in crime are, well, not exactly in any hurry to materialize.
On the one hand, it's a plus that she prioritized good sense over dogma, but on the other hand, it's a little strange how her policies are only bad when its the other party that's advocating for them.
The opponent was advocating for not prosecuting any misdemeanors as a matter of policy. There's a big difference.
Edit because I happen to have the interview bookmarked: Nicole Thomas-Kennedy was the opponent, and in her own words[1], "the goal is to end misdemeanor prosecution."
> She attacked that exact same line of reasoning when running for election.
NTK was a nutter who wanted to stop all prosecution in the city. Ann Davison was a tough on crime realist. Huge difference.
You might be referring to the incumbent who didn't make it through the open primary, but he got us into this mess in the first place. No one was going to give him another shot.
Property crimes don't matter anymore. When my friends got their catalytic converters stolen the police never even bothered to show up. Taking statements may not get their cats back, but it goes towards building up a large enough case to justify a unit to handle it.
You are correct though. Our DA is a "soft on crime" type. As a result, all forms of criminal behavior have increased dramatically in the last several years.