Re: Compromised Los Angeles Times editors think George Gascon is the real victim of the city's crime surge

Skip to first unread message

Soros Scum

Aug 6, 2022, 5:50:03 PM8/6/22
In article <t2fsn5$3jeoj$>
<> wrote:
> Gascon is an asshole.

With Los Angeles experiencing a surge in crime, won't somebody
think of poor District Attorney George Gascon? He keeps letting
them right back out onto the streets to victimize more
Angelenos, but according to the Los Angeles Times editorial
board, Gascon is the real victim.

The board offers two defenses of Gascon as it denounces the
recall election petition against him as part of a “destructive,
distracting recall mania” that took down San Francisco District
Attorney Chesa Boudin.

The first defense is that voters elected Gascon in the first
place and have “repeatedly expressed their desire for a crime-
and-punishment system that is more just, more equitable, more
efficient and more constructive.” In that case, Gascon need not
worry — after all, a recall is just another election, right? If
voters are so happy with Gascon’s “equitable” system, they will
simply retain him in office.

But oh gee, the board doesn’t seem very confident that voters,
having experienced the consequences of his pro-criminal, soft-on-
crime stance, will reaffirm Gascon in a new vote. They have a
good reason for that. Boudin was recalled by roughly 36,000 more
votes than he was elected with in 2019 under San Francisco’s
ranked-choice voting. Once San Franciscan voters saw how
destructive Boudin’s policies really were, they turned out in
larger numbers than they had in the actual election. Gascon may
be courting the same result.

The Los Angeles Times editors also claim that Gascon doesn’t
control crime. “The notion that a DA can make crime rise or fall
over a period of months is absurd,” the board wrote. That may be
true, but this isn't about the passage of time. It is foolish to
assert that letting violent repeat criminals back out on the
street doesn’t cause an increase in crime — especially when
there are concrete examples of Gascon's graduates leaving jail
after pleading down from serious charges and then reoffending.

Is it not enough for voters to be upset that hardened, violent
career criminals are being given lenient sentences? Gascon
shrank the city’s “hardcore gang” unit at a time when homicides
were surging due mostly to gang shootings. Gascon opposes
sentencing enhancements for criminals who belong to gangs or use
guns in their crimes. He bends over backward to give them
lighter sentences. He wants to keep victims and their family
members out of the loop about parole hearings. He strives to
make it easier for violent criminals to be paroled, even
refusing to pursue life sentences without parole for those
convicted of murder.

If “equity” means giving violent criminals the lightest sentence
possible, no matter what their crime or how long their list of
convictions is, then perhaps "equity" is the problem.

Should Los Angeles voters be condemned for not wanting to see
the people who have preyed upon them walk away with a slap on
the wrist? The editors of the Los Angeles Times think so.
Thankfully, they will not decide Gascon’s fate. The voters they
scold, who mostly have the good sense not to read the Los
Angeles Times's editorials, will decide Gascon's fate.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages