The New Gotham and 2019 Elections
Hi,
Welcome to Roll Call, a newsletter about the state of policy and technology in public safety, and the people shaping it. If you’d like to sign up, you can do so here. Or just read on…
Today’s note is a look at public safety narratives on this side of the 2019 election cycle. What does it mean that a handful of radically liberal District Attorneys won in bellwether counties? What do Sheriffs’ elections tell us about the most pressing criminal justice concerns of voters? Have any city-wide initiatives changed the national discourse around public safety issues?
TL;DR
The ‘decarceral,’ anti-establishment, and reformist movements (in the model of Larry Krasner, Philadelphia DA) are the new normal for district attorneys of major cities. This has a significant impact on the back half of the criminal justice funnel.
The national context drove the platforms of local races, with issues like immigration and 287(g), mental health, and gun violence at the fore.
More data around race and mental health and new types of first responders mean that legacy CAD and RMS systems will have to be adapted, or new entrants could win major-city deals on feature-level requests.
Chesa Boudin and San Francisco
There’s a meme doing the rounds on Twitter that San Francisco is the New Gotham, needing - but not deserving - a masked vigilante to address a crime problem that can’t or won’t be solved by Democratic leadership. It’s funny on its face - “Of course the Batman of today would come from San Francisco! Wouldn’t the bat signal look wonderful in the Bay Area fog?” The sentiment has been bubbling in tech and VC circles for a while, but it was given the New Gotham rallying cry by the Boba Guys this month. The local business has been an unfortunate victim of three separate break-ins this year, and one of its founders took to Instagram to voice his frustration:
The truth is weirder than the meme. The tech bro boosts the meme with the nonchalant rationale of “it’s funny because it’s true.” He - and it’s always a he - is horny for the apocalypse, a casual prepper who thinks he is a gray man. It’s strange: most work at tech companies that claim to disrupt, to change the world for the better. Building software is a superpower! Better governance is a superpower! It’s sad that so many who are so (presumably) able to help would welcome vigilante justice. There are better ways for mortals to tackle the problems facing the Bay Area than pining for superheroes. Especially superheroes from the DC Universe.
The inverse take is equally distorted, a comic book interpretation of New Gothamites’ real concerns. Murder rates and violent crime are down, yes. The most visible, continuous, and time-sucking crimes are up. To be clear, I have not lived in San Francisco beyond a few week-long stays, but the subtle paranoia that my friends there experience is wild. It’s draining to live in a city where you need to watch your step lest you step on a needle, or feces. It’s draining to remove all bags and backpacks from a car anytime you stop, whether for groceries or a coffee or a movie. It’s draining, especially for women, to be uncomfortable walking outside except within extremely strict times and places. To those who say, “c’mon, it can’t be that bad,” I give you this:
We won’t spend much time on the well-documented laundry list of challenges that have brought the city to this point: high housing costs, gentrification, an inadequate public transportation system. The city is facing challenges equal in magnitude to the opportunities that come with the large rise in income. There is no simple fix. Nuance exists, even in San Francisco. If you are interested in seeing every shade of gray in the criminal justice system, this article about a prolific porch pirate in a nice SF neighborhood is the perfect case study. The humanity and futility of the whole situation breaks your heart. Of course more mental health services are needed. On the other hand, you can’t physically force someone to attend rehabilitative programs. Of course low-level crimes shouldn’t result in jail time. On the other hand, how many low-level crimes become careers - “a mail carrier in reverse” stealing and selling Amazon packages? Of course Nextdoor and Amazon Ring help stitch together the neighborhood of the digital age. On the other hand, these consumer surveillance technologies open a Pandora’s box of problems, the fallout of which will have to be dealt with by society and public safety.
This is the backdrop for the recent election of New Go- excuse me, San Francisco’s District Attorney. A combination of unexpected and avoidable factors enabled Chesa Boudin to win despite only collecting a third of first place votes in SF’s ranked choice voting system. One factor that was absolutely known going in was that Boudin’s personal history made him a lightning rod candidate. He was fourteen months old when his parents were arrested. They drove the getaway car for a botched robbery that killed three as members of Weather Underground, the radical left militant organization. Boudin grew up only able to see his parents in prison, which imbued him with the desire to reform the criminal justice system. His legal and political careers seem to have destined him for the position he occupies today.
So what does Chesa Boudin want to do? Why was the San Francisco Police Officers Association so riled up that they spent over $650,000 in opposition? How much damage did the mayor think he’d do that would justify her appointing another candidate as the interim DA, which invited (justifiable) claims of favoritism? Boudin’s platform, with my commentary italicized:
On quality of life crimes, ACLU questionnaire: “We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes. Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted. Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted, we have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness.” This is where Boudin hurt himself, even in extremely liberal San Francisco. This is hard for average (albeit SF-average, which is affluent) commuters to stomach, a DA purposefully ignoring the most prevalent and visible crimes. Combined with a ‘soft’ approach on the next levels of misdemeanors, outlined below, it’s not difficult to see why he received backlash from law enforcement orgs, conservatives, and even moderate Democrats.
On car break-ins specifically: “Burglars have become so effective at evading capture that in 2017, of the 31,000 auto-burglaries which were actually reported to the police, arrests were made in less than 2% of all cases. It is impossible for the District Attorney to prosecute the remaining 98%. Those few who are arrested and prosecuted successfully are harshly punished, to make up for the tens of thousands who get away.” That needs to change to address “sophisticated criminal networks” differently from desperate, homeless, and addicted perpetrators. He will address these by by “implementing his extensive restorative justice policy coupled with his comprehensive mental health policy.” Boudin actually explains this very clearly. If the line between organized crime and scattershot desperation larcenies is as bright as painted here, then this policy makes sense. It’s like Batman going after the Joker instead of his cronies; the small-time bad guys don’t deserve the court time it would take to put them all away.
On restorative justice: Basically an expansion of a practice used in juvenile crimes, restorative justice emphasizes accountability instead of punishment by making perpetrators address those they’ve harmed. Translated to action, this means that an offender can avoid prosecution for misdemeanors by meeting with the victims. The program requires taking accountability, acknowledging harm, expressing genuine remorse, working to repair the harm, and committing to causing no further, similar harm. It has a track record of success, but cuts strongly against the grain of American history, ‘tough on crime’ types, and the petty desire for punishment.
On mental health care: “San Francisco’s jails have become our largest mental health facility. 75% of people incarcerated suffer from serious mental illness and/or substance use disorders. Yet jails do nothing to treat the root cause…” His plan involves expanding mental health diversion programs, closing a jail and using the savings, and creating a centralized mental health facility run by professionals. The “pre-arrest diversion” is the most interesting, and it’s somewhat surprising it wasn’t embraced more by the law enforcement community. Boudin wants to enable police to bring Dept. of Public Health clinicians into the fold early, removing the burden of duty on scene. Instead of only being able to involuntarily commit someone to a hospital or temporarily book them in jail, a clinician can take over. This ‘puts cops back on streets,’ which they almost always want to do. Find the ringleaders of those organized larceny groups!
On racial disparities: Boudin will focus on four vectors. He’s committed to making decisions transparent by “publish[ing] data about the demographics of people stopped, arrested, jailed, convicted, and sentenced.” He’ll implement race-blind charging and plea bargaining by removing demographic visibility before charging and pleas offers. Felony convictions will no longer add gang enhancements that increase years the offender must serve; these enhancements have literally never been used on a white person. Finally, the DA’s Office will decline charges when they determine an arrest was racially motivated, when evidence was gathered in a racially motivated manner, and when an arresting officer has a history of racist behavior. This area of focus introduces the most questions around technology use. SFPD uses software called Crime Data Warehouse that just barely meets the definition of an RMS. Data collection is dubious, due to both system inadequacy and burdensome good intentions of social justice legislators. How will stop, arrest, jail, conviction, and sentencing data be pushed to the public? Will that be a manual process, a feature built into the current system, or a procured product integrated in? Here’s a fun one: will the DA’s office build their own database of officers with corresponding ‘Racial Motivation Rankings’? If the goal is to decline to charge cases brought by racist officers, should the DA’s office blacklist them? Will Boudin tell Chief Scott of SFPD that those officers won’t have cases followed up on? Will Chief Scott try to appease the DA by mandating different report-writing procedures to clean up the appearance of any impropriety in evidence-gathering? We’ll find out in 2020, folks!
Other District Attorneys
In liberal Queens (NYC), the race was over by election night. Melinda Katz, NYC politico insider, faced strong primary attacks from her left in Tiffany Cabán, who was supported by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Cabán, like Boudin, is a Democratic Socialist, and ran on a similar platform campaigning to “reduce recidivism, decriminalize poverty, end mass incarceration, and to protect our immigrant communities.” Instead, it was Katz who eked out the primary victory, pushed to the left in the process. Here are a handful of her policies that will change the criminal justice landscape (keeping in mind that Katz was the moderate candidate):
On sentencing reform: an internal committee charged with lobbying State legislature for criminal justice reforms, a complete end of cash bail (shared with Boudin), and re-introducing plea bargains after indictments.
On marijuana arrests: Katz will refuse to prosecute. This is not as comprehensive a list as Boudin on charges that the office will decline to prosecute. It does reflect the shift in how comfortable district attorneys are with leveraging their discretionary or veto powers.
On gun violence: Gun violence will be addressed through a public health lens, meaning that Katz hopes to “decrease the need for prosecutions and incarceration by decreasing the incidences of violence in the community.” She also somehow connects this issue to “aiding the formerly incarcerated with re-entry into their community.” Somewhat confusing, and it’s hard to see how the DA will so broadly address the issue of gun violence, or what parts are the near term focuses for reform.
On asset seizure: Katz will focus on “transparent use of seized assets by annually reporting on what programs are funded and how they make our families and neighborhoods safer.” Like Boudin’s potential blacklist, this raises the tech question. How will the PD and Sheriff’s Office re-arrange their quartermaster software to meet Katz’s program objectives? Will they have to procure another tool?
For further reading on DA’s other than the headliners in San Francisco and New York, The Appeal did a great breakdown of how the landscape changed particularly in Pennsylvania and Virginia. One good excerpt: “In upstate New York, challengers who ran on reform platforms fell short. Monroe County DA Sandra Doorley (the president-elect of the state’s DA association), Onondaga County DA William Fitzpatrick (its former president), and Dutchess County DA William Grady (a longtime foe of reform) won new terms; all are Republicans. This means that many of the New York DA’s who have resisted the state’s new pretrial reforms will now be in charge of implementing them.”
Sheriffs
Prince William County (VA) Sheriff Glen Hill, a Republican, narrowly won re-election to a fifth term against Democrat Josh King. The election is notable for two reasons. First, it is representative of Sheriffs’ elections across the country that were referendums on similar platforms. Second, almost all other county-wide elections went to Democrats, showing the importance of candidate strength and policy differences in sheriffs’ elections. Glen Hill is best described in this context as a foil for his opponent. Josh King “is an Iraq War veteran, a deputy sheriff [in Fairfax County], a leader in his local union (SEIU) and an advocate for people with special needs.” His platform was:
Terminating the 287(g) program: 287(g) is the mechanism by which local sheriffs’ offices cooperate with ICE on immigration procedures. It has become the tipping point political issue for immigration-oriented liberal and conservative voters. King said the program has been “used to harass, intimidate and discriminate against minorities, and people of color. Minorities with disabilities are among the most vulnerable and they must be protected.” There’s also a not insignificant cost involved; King argued that Prince William County “had to raise property taxes by 5% and reduce funds given to local police and fire services to cover the cost of the program.” On top of that, there’s evidence that shows 287(g) as a public safety liability, reducing the number of immigrants willing to contact police as victims of crime due to fears of arrest. Why would any sheriff support ICE and 287(g)? Jackson Parish in Louisiana is the best example of the warped incentives that are in play. Over the past couple years, the number of local jail inmates has dropped by over 4,000. This negatively impacts the cash flow of the private businesses and parish sheriffs who operate the jails. They are grateful that ICE has contracted with them to house around 7,000 immigrant detainees, as the federal contracts are far more lucrative than housing state correctional inmates. Without tax increases, sheriffs can upgrade infrastructure and pay higher salaries. The tradeoff is private companies owning, operating, and profiting off the jails and committing to executing unpopular ICE policies.
Preparing for school shootings: Community-wide projects of gun safety classes, and committing to adequate active shooter training for deputies.
Addressing the school to prison pipeline: King focused on the impact of mental health, promising “that all my Deputies [would] receive adequate training to assist and protect children and adults with special needs. When deputies encounter them in the courthouse or on the street, they should be equipped with the tools needed to assist, detain or protect them.” Less concrete than the DA’s above, but certainly an awareness that this gap needs to be addressed.
Another Republican Sheriff who took heat on 287(g) in a re-election campaign was Sheriff Sid Gatreaux in East Baton Rouge Parish. He overcame opposition from two Democrat candidates.
One more interesting race: Loudoun County Sheriff in Virginia. Another Republican, Mike Chapman, was re-elected despite significant PR headwinds. Loudoun County is the largest county in the state, and the Sheriff’s Office is the only law enforcement agency in the county. Usually one or more police departments operate in the larger cities of each county and split responsibilities. Other Virginia counties split duties at the county level, like Fairfax County, which has a PD and an SO. After Chapman’s re-election, Loudoun County Chair Phyllis Randall (Democrat) has decided to push forward her plan of creating a Loudoun County Police Department. Of course, this would undercut Sheriff Chapman’s power, relegating his duties to jail and county courthouse oversight. That would mirror the model currently in place in Fairfax. Randall argues this isn’t merely a political stratagem; in fact, she says it’d be the opposite, as “previous Loudoun deputies have been fired for supporting Chapman's political rivals… Randall said deputies' jobs shouldn't be at risk depending on their politics and whom they support during elections.
‘A sheriff of the county does not “answer loyal” to anyone except every four years to the citizens. But even then, the sheriff can tell the citizens what he wants to tell the citizens - so the citizens only know what the sheriff chooses to tell them. There may be other things that they don’t know,’ Randall said.” Chapman obviously opposes this plan. It’ll be an interesting case study for our evolving exploration of power structures in a police department.
City Initiatives
Tucson failed to become the first sanctuary city in Arizona when Prop. 205 did not pass. If it had, it “would have limited the circumstances in which police officers could ask about immigration status.”
Thanks for reading. If you enjoy this newsletter, please share it, forward it to your friends, or just sign up here.
-MA
Reading Recommendations
What’s a Hairbag by Joseph Goldstein and Ali Watkins, a look at the “ok boomer” of NYPD and age discrimination in a police department
Ghost Ships, Crop Circles, and Soft Gold by Mark Harris, a rollercoaster about crime, tech, and ecology around Shanghai. Lot of lessons here for policy/tech.
How NBA Executive Jeff David Stole $13 Million from the Sacramento Kings by Kevin Arnovitz. “Curiosity? Stupidity?”
Did Emma Sulkowicz Get Redpilled? by Sylvie McNamara. Just trust me.
Civility is Overrated by Adam Serwer