Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:“I used to tell myself that San Francisco’s politics were wacky but the city was trying—really trying—to be good. But the reality is that with the smartest minds and so much money and the very best of intentions, San Francisco became a cruel city. It became so dogmatically progressive that maintaining the purity of the politics required accepting—or at least ignoring—devastating results.
But this dogmatism may be buckling under pressure from reality. Earlier this year, in a landslide, San Francisco voters recalled the head of the school board and two of her most progressive colleagues. These are the people who also turned out Boudin; early results showed m that about 60 percent of voters chose to recall him.
Residents had hoped Boudin would reform the criminal-justice system and treat low-level offenders more humanely. Instead, critics argued that his policies victimized victims, allowed criminals to go free to reoffend, and did nothing to help the city’s most vulnerable. To understand just how noteworthy Boudin’s defenestration is, please keep in mind that San Francisco has only a tiny number of Republicans. This fight is about leftists versus liberals. It’s about idealists who think a perfect world is within reach—it’ll only take a little more time, a little more commitment, a little more funding, forever—and those who are fed up.“
This quote perfectly encapsulates the debate.
I was reading a Facebook post recently on the “New Hill East” Facebook group feed. It was from the director of a non profit dedicated to implementing restorative justice policies and her post was imploring residents of the city not to seek carceral types of punishment for crimes, but to allow restorative justice to simply have more time to work. To show itself and prove itself as a better means of justice than prison for violent offenders.
I shook my head. Not because I don’t think restorative justice could sometimes be useful, but because my immediate thoughts on the post were: “lady, car jackings and puppy stealing at gun point and violent crime is up by double digit percentages in the last few years and you’re arguing for, objectively, a more lenient form of punishment for violent criminals? I get that much of the uptick could be related the pandemic, but at the same time it could also criminals knowing that city has implement criminal justice reform policies that themselves seem to promote a climate of…lawlessness. If teens know they get a slap on the wrist and are released after they steal a car, they will do it. If a 26 year old “kid” knows that the recently implemented Youth Rehabiliation Act allows for heir criminal record to be shielded so they face less consequences, then that’s a pretty progressive criminal justice problem that seems like it would exacerbate crime.”
I was also annoyed because even though, I considered or I wanted to comment on her post, which good sense told me not to, being a Hill resident, and understanding how much blow back I would receive for questioning the progressive orthodoxy of these criminal justice reform policiies from tons of other members of the group who by and large sway liberal, me commenting just would have don’t nothing other than to “out myself” as some kind of moderate political monster.
It’s gotten to the point where rigid adherence to political ideology and purity tests are the norm. I would have been crucified for saying “maybe jail is a more appropriate punishment for car jacking than restorative justice”. But doing that would have branded me
Insensitive or worse. It’s weird. This is what Fox News means by cancel culture I guess. It’s a climate where you can’t feel free to question the prevailaong group think.