Third Way: A New Approach To Crime

San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images

Amid conversations surrounding police use of force and policing in general, one aspect of the criminal justice system has largely taken a backseat. The role of the District Attorney within the criminal justice system has the greatest impact on the system as a whole; however, calls for criminal justice reform often do not include this office to the degree necessary to bring about impactful change.

Background

In the past few years—especially in the wake of high-profile encounters with the police in cases such as George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner—the greater attention and nuanced discussions around how D.A.s handle prosecution and sentencing overall have taken place.

The same calls that are heard surrounding shifting police away from encountering the public over low-level crimes migrated toward DA offices in a similar manner. In a reality in which the greater populace is confronted with videos and accounts of police abuse of force, questions surrounding the system as a whole are on the rise. The increased saliency of issues surrounding the U.S.' administration of justice now extends to issues of mass incarceration, the flaws of the "War on Drugs," racial disparities in policing and sentencing, and the manner in which the criminal justice system is more focused on punitive measures rather than rehabilitative ones.

Due to the calls from the public to ensure public safety, more pressure is exerted on D.A.s to pursue lenient charges that punish while at the same time providing equitable justice for the accused. Justice should lean on the side of restorative rather than punitive. Justice must be given to the victim; however, the justice system should make every effort to provide a just outcome for the accused. This means that while a person found guilty should be punished for that crime, those convicted should also be afforded every opportunity to progress in society post-sentence.

The lessening of sentencing across the U.S.—mostly in larger, more Democratic areas—includes many topics. For example, according to FiveThirtyEight, in Philadelphia and throughout Virginia minor traffic offenses are not pursued, Oregon decriminalized drug possession, and Louisiana has banned police from pursuing low-level misdemeanors. On top of that, throughout California, theft under $950 is labeled as a misdemeanor—therefore unlikely to be prioritized as needing law enforcement.

Argument

With discussions based on emotion and policy occurring across the U.S. in the public, Congress, and amongst law enforcement agents, there is inevitably a push-pull relationship to determine where the borders of our justice system lie. Recently, as cities moved toward restructuring how crime is pursued and punished at lower levels, criticism concerning the refocus has occurred almost as severely.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than San Francisco, CA, where the current DA, Chesa Boudin, is currently in danger of recall next June and faces a public campaign including former prosecutors to remove him from office. In addition, San Francisco is experiencing increased crime across the board, ranging from theft to violent crime. Understandably, many are concerned with the increase in crime throughout the city; however, the degree that this increase can be attributed to the new DA and his policies is debatable.

Country-wide, the crime rate is increasing, including small towns and major metro areas such as San Francisco. While this seems to be a given at first, it is essential to note that crime increases across the states. That means that cities that critics label as "soft on crime," are seeing an increase in the number of criminal acts along with areas that are "tough on crime." Unfortunately, this fact means that the answer to why there is more crime in the U.S. cannot be explained simply by one DA, nor one policy on criminal justice. Of course, this does not provide a satisfying answer; however, the question of criminality itself does not have a straightforward answer either.

In San Francisco, gun violence, burglary, and thefts have all increased this year, and with that, a call to reexamine the prosecution of crime and policing is a reasonable argument.

If one watches the news, crime always appears to be on the rise and as an uncontrollable, ever-present part of life. However, that intense emotional response is not based on fact or in data. Since 1993, crime, especially violent crime, has been decreasing as a whole, with the only increase in this downward trend occurring last year.

Coupled with that, reducing police encounters most significantly contributes to fewer officer-involved shootings. Many larger metropolitan cities have experimented with police and prosecution practices to varying degrees, with mixed results. But more importantly, cities and smaller metro areas have left tough on crime statutes while still seeing crime rates rise.

Therefore, there must be more than just reducing the amount of low-level criminal prosecution. Questions of justice abound in the U.S. and San Francisco at the moment, and we should not shy away from a myriad of answers. However, that does not mean that we should revert to a tough-on-crime era that was aggressively punitive.

Conclusion

In San Francisco, specifically, the recall election held next June for DA Boudin appears to be not entirely based on reality but instead on a desire to recall a Democratic DA. Similar to the recall election of California Governor Gavin Newsom, it remains to be seen how the election will end up. However, the primary donors behind the campaign to recall the DA are primarily tough-on-crime Conservatives that have launched similar recalls of elected officials throughout the state.

As seen in this specific case of San Francisco and the debate surrounding where the line should be drawn between enforcement and leniency, where the U.S. justice system should intervene with its full weight is ever-changing. Society’s tolerance, and intolerance, for certain crimes and misdemeanors, is constantly influx as seen in the recent push to dismantle the War on Drugs, and in metropolitan areas experimenting with public safety strategies as opposed to crime reduction strategies.

There will always be flashy, viral examples of someone that commits a brazen low-level crime and receives a reduced sentence; however, for every example of that, and those that are unseen, how many individuals are not killed in an officer-involved shooting?

The line between punitive and restorative justice will most likely never be set in stone; however, it is crucial that perfection is constantly a goal that is not abandoned for convenience. No one, not even DA Boudin—despite some of his critic’s arguments—is arguing that crime should go unpunished, rather that not all crimes are treated in a manner in which punitive measures are sought out of ease for the DA’s office. Who knows where the line should be drawn, but the move away from the practice that an individual should sacrifice their life for one infraction is a positive development, and just now begins to heal the overreach of the U.S. justice system.