Comment by 11thEarlOfMar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 11thEarlOfMar | Hacker News Reader

I was on the edge of the same decision. This move by the new district attorney in LA is so far beyond the pale that if it's not rescinded soon, I am gone too:

"NEW: L.A. County DA George Gascon has issued a directive to prosecutors that the following misdemeanors will be declined for prosecution, with exemptions.

-Trespassing

-Disturbing the peace

-Driving without license

-Prostitution

-Resisting arrest"

This is an abbreviated tweet, and each of these has some explanation and color, for example, resisting arrest will still be prosecuted if the suspect physically assaults the officer. But they can break loose from restraint and flee and not be prosecuted for resisting.

Prostitution was more specifically 'loitering to commit prostitution'.

My issue is the message this sends to those committing criminal behavior. They'd be attracted to municipalities that they know will not prosecute them. In many cases, it's likely that this petty crime is largely in support of drug addiction or influenced by mental illness. It would be more effective (and lauded by me) if this approach was paired with an effective treatment system. None is put forth(?), and we'll just see more and more mayhem, as we have seen already in San Francisco.

The key word there is "misdemeanors," if the crime is more serious it would be prosecuted

Here's some detail in the capture:

https://twitter.com/BillFOXLA/status/1336119868182077445/pho...

Most crucially, resisting arrest is only dismissed if it's in conjunction with one of the misdemeanors listed above. So for instance, if a sex worker was arrested for loitering, and resisting arrest, both the loitering and the resisting arrest charge would be dismissed. But if she hit the cop, she'd still be charged, and if she resisted arrest after actual prostitution she'd be charged with both.

I don't know how this is related to Elon Musk's decision, but:

Most of those have the exception clauses like "repeat offenses" or "imminent danger" (except prostitution) which sounds much more reasonable than how it's been described.

The message this sends to "those committing criminal behavior" hasn't really changed. If they have been committing criminal behavior, they will be charged, because repeat offenses are an exception.

More likely, this sends the message "doing a mistake once won't ruin your life forever" and "sex work isn't a crime".

So do people not need to renew their driver's license then? Or is there a fine? What if you don't pay the fine?

I'm more worried about those who have lost their license, e.g. due to multiple DWIs.

Sure, but even for the average law abiding Californian it would be nice having one less government requirement to worry about.

The part of me that likes freedom over safety likes this idea because it gives the government less ability to enforce its own bullshit.

You're in multiple computers all connected to the internet. Honestly these days we should all just be able to give the police our names and have them pull up our information. It's the same thing. You'll still get in trouble if the picture doesn't match. The ID could come through in ciphertext and need to be decoded using a secret known only to the person to whom it belongs.

It should be legal to drive without a physical license. We're all stored inside the computer now.

My guess would be eventually the fines rack up to the point where it becomes a more serious offense and more drastic measures are taken. Also, a lot of the enforcement measures likely do not fall under the umbrella of "prosecution."

I'm not sure if driving without a license can ever be escalated to a felony, but I'm sure they can do things like impound the car, etc. That would never involve the DA unless it was challenged in court

I like that CA has legalized marijuana but still criminalized prostitution.

> They'd be attracted to municipalities that they know will not prosecute them.

LOL, this makes as much sense as suggestions that members of $GROUP move to $STATE to achieve some political goal.

Do you have any idea how vanishingly small the number of people who can actually just up and move somewhere is?

I doubt many explicitly pick their destination. But there's definitely a process of diffusion, where people are more likely to settle in jurisdictions amenable to their lifestyle and relocate when they're not. This is especially true for the largely transient community of petty criminals.

I can speak from personal experience here. Our local town had one of the toughest-on-vagrancy laws in the country. Then it go eviscerated in court, and the laws struck down. Without taking a position whether that was a good or bad thing, it's undeniable that the change was near instantaneous. Downtown became swarmed with aggressive panhandlers and park benches filled up with addicts on the nod.

It's not like the homeless in other cities were closely following the local court decisions, then strategically relocated. But by definition transient populations bounce around a lot. In previous times they might pass through before getting hassled, then thinking this place really harshes my mellow, then hightail it out of town. Now they show up, enjoy the good weather, panhandle off the tourists, don't get hassled by the cops, and what used to be a week-long residency turns into a year or two.

People do this all the time. People show up in San Francisco all the time with no money or belongings to their name.

It's very easy if you have incentive, or if you have nothing keeping where you are. Career criminals have every incentive in the world to move to a city where they'll be treated lightly, and often nothing holding them back.

Add to that the "do as I say, no as I do" attitude from the state government which seems to revel in the opportunity offered by the SARS2 epidemic to exercise power over their constituents upon which those constituents go from demonstrating against capricious rules [1] to sheriffs blankly refusing to enforce those rules [2] and the question really becomes why those people who can move out of California don't move out of California.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MllTDoW9cMI - Bar owner in Los Angeles CA is livid to see that mayor Garcetti has approved an outdoor dining area

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvvRme0h2oY - Message from Sheriff Bianco 12-04-20

>They'd be attracted to municipalities that they know will not prosecute them.

Sounds like you have a really solid understanding of the sociological nature of crime! /s

Property crime skyrocketed in San Francisco under Gascon. I'm curious to know:

Was there an influx of criminals from outside San Francisco? Or did law-abiding citizens turn to crime? Or did the crimes per criminal go up?

In any case, it was a disaster. Los Angeles deserves what it gets for voting him in.

Have you considered the possibility that changing crime rates can be attributed to wider socioeconomic phenomena and not whoever happens to be in charge of the city/state/country? Or are you just using this opportunity to display your prejudices?

It has nothing to do with "who's in charge," but it has everything to do with the specific policies that have been put in place, and Gascon's policies have been terrible.

I think our justice system desperately needs reform, but it needs to be done in a competent way. Could it be that your own prejudices are preventing you from Gascon's half-baked efforts with an objective, critical eye?

The fact that even questioning the effectiveness of an individual's policies gets you labeled as "prejudiced" sums up so much that's wrong with modern progressivism.

Coincidentally, “the state has decided to ease up on its brutal repression of poor black people” is also why the Musk family left South Africa

Reply on news.ycombinator.com