Violent crime went down during Boudin’s tenure. Don’t base opinions on media propaganda.
Let alone pick up the phone - which happened in my case twice in a year
So are SF residents propagandized sheeple and recalled him for no good reason, or is there more to the story than your first sentence?
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/garry-tan-vs-chesa-b...
https://twitter.com/jackiefielder_/status/164165611708338176...
Maybe recalling Boudin is right or not, but either way when a lot of money is injected into a campaign, it tends to influence outcomes. Just see Prop 22.
> By June, the groups seeking to recall Boudin together raised $7.2 million to oust him, while the district attorney’s backers gathered about $3.3 million.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/election/article/Chesa-Boudin-ou...
https://ballotpedia.org/District_Attorney_election_in_San_Fr...
https://ballotpedia.org/Chesa_Boudin_recall,_San_Francisco,_...
Homicides give a useful corrective since they’re harder to under report.
Given this fact and the various confounders (e.g. how do you rob or assault someone during a time of complete shutdown, how does nilling out the substantial daytime population increase do to per capita rates, is an overdose death really not worth reporting in crime statistics), at best we don’t know what actually happened to violent crime rates in the last three years.
Boudin refused to prosecute any of this.
SF has a significantly lower charging rate than other major cities, but there's many factors that go into that (the quality of police work, percentage of defendants that live in the district, etc.).
Homicides were not outside of historical trends during Boudin's tenure. A few homicides difference across years has nothing to do with the DA. This narrative that radical leftist district attorneys are responsible for crime is media propaganda completely divorced from the factual realities of crime.
Comparing charging rates of recent San Francisco district attorneys with other cities shows San Francisco has tended to charge way fewer crimes brought to them. Boudin and previous attorneys have blamed this on poor policing, and that SF is unique in that people in surrounding metros travel into SF to commit burglaries. Even so, that has nothing to do with the political leanings of the DA, since cities with much higher charging rates and lower petty crime have Democrat DAs.
You really think 41 versus 49 homicides in a year is the result of which DA is in office? The homicide numbers are not far outside of historical trends, which is downward over the last few decades. https://patch.com/img/cdn20/users/22880695/20191114/014855/s...
The notion that the DA has any outsized impact on crime rates seems baseless to me. I've never seen any evidence which demonstrates a real relationship between district attorneys and overall crime.
I was not making claims here about causal relationships between DAs and crime rates. I was simply engaging with the question about trends of violent crime rates in San Francisco. If pressed, my guess is San Francisco under Boudin saw a slower increase in violent crime than comparable jurisdictions. However, I also think Boudin actually accomplished very little since most meaningful criminal justice reform occurs at the state level. Reasonable models suggest San Francisco incarcerates too little and Modesto too much. That’s why, for example, Prop 25 bail reform would have led to more pretrial detention in San Francisco while reducing the rate for California overall.
I disagree with your assessment of homicide trends. The United States and San Francisco both have seen a trend shift towards increased homicide that would set us back approximately three decades. This is significant.
If a DA in any case has no control over crime rates in the community, then it’s a vibes based job, and Boudin had horrible vibes, as evidenced by his getting recalled.