The Untold Story- Selling Out Public Safety One District Attorney at a Time
The Untold Story- Selling Out Public Safety One District Attorney at a Time
By Eric Granof
History is full of examples where good intentions paved the way to disastrous outcomes. Today, we are witnessing another such moment -- a social experiment in criminal justice reform that has unleashed unforeseen consequences on our urban communities.
This experiment was built on two flawed premises. The first was that bail is unnecessary and people would voluntarily appear in court without financial incentives. The second was that “soft-on-crime” policies would not lead to increased criminal activity. Both assumptions have proven catastrophically wrong, but the damage has already been done.
A group of individuals advocating bail reform -- and criminal justice reform in general -- established a network of groups to push a series of initiatives. It was funded by a small number of extremely deep-pocketed foundations and wealthy billionaires. Among them, the Open Society Foundation and its prominent backer, George Soros, played outsized roles in driving the agenda. They set up a network of groups that may be broken into four categories.
The first group identifies certain soft-on-crime district attorney candidates running for office who were open to adopting these controversial policies. Those that did would see generous contributions flowing into their campaigns. Other groups were often deployed during these election cycles to discredit or smear opponents who might challenge their reformist candidate. Since early races were usually in Democratic strongholds, they concentrated on primary elections. Once their DA candidate won these races, general election victories were all but assured.
After a candidate was elected, the second group would take over, organizing seminars and meetings for newly elected and returning district attorneys. Through their presentations, these groups promoted policies they supported, often in a manner resembling a quid pro quo. These policies included the decriminalization of certain crimes, the abandonment of sentence enhancements and the rejection of extended sentences, among others. Sentence enhancements are typically used to distinguish serious offenders, such as drug dealers, from ordinary users. For example, a dealer caught with 20 pounds of meth might face 20 years in prison instead of a brief sentence for drug possession. By eliminating sentence enhancements, the deterrent effect of the risk of lengthy prison terms for drug dealers was lost, compromising public safety.
The third group served as the research arm of the initiative, providing “analysis” for district attorneys to justify that the policy changes would either enhance public safety or at least not increase crime. Over the past few years, their widely-publicized reports consistently concluded that crime rates were not rising, often framing the issue as one of perception versus reality. Their conclusions were partly based on FBI statistics indicating a decline in crime. Additionally, the research frequently asserted that bail reform policies had no impact on crime rates. However, this narrative faced a major setback in October 2024, when updated FBI statistics revealed an increase in crime. Just a week after this data was released, a new "study" was hastily released, continuing to claim that bail reform had not contributed to the rise in crime.
The fourth group served a public relations function which offered suggested press statements for district attorneys, framing these policy changes as essential steps toward a more just society. These statements, couched in a persuasive manner in support of the new policies, ignored mounting evidence of their dismal failure.
Advocates might argue that they began implementing these policies in heavily Democratic areas to showcase their success and use the results to expand into more conservative regions.
However, the policies have proven to be disastrous. On his first day as Los Angeles County District Attorney four years ago, George Gascón issued a series of directives outlining his new approach to law enforcement -- or the lack thereof. These directives included eliminating the requirement for financially secured bail, refusing to pursue gang-related sentence enhancements and supporting the decriminalization of retail theft. In doing so, Gascón disregarded existing laws. Over the next three years, Los Angeles County experienced a surge in crime, marked by rampant retail theft, escalating violence and the closure of commercial businesses. For many, these policies undermined the safety of law-abiding citizens, while for criminals, they provided a virtual free pass to test the limits of law enforcement.
When Gascón sought reelection in November 2024, he was defeated by nearly 20 points. Similarly, in 2022, San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, another progressive-backed district attorney, was ousted in a recall election. Since 2022, out of the roughly 75 Soros-linked prosecutors, over 30 have left office, while 21 have been replaced by traditional (tough on crime) district attorneys.
The policies pushed by this coalition have hit the hard wall of reality. The clear light of scrutiny has revealed that these measures not only failed to achieve their goals but also contributed to rising crime rates. This social experiment has proven to be a failure. Persisting in the pursuit of these policies can only inflict further damage, with potentially devastating consequences. For these groups to continue on their destructive path would cause unspeakable harm to the people they purport to serve.
See more-
Comments
Post a Comment