Read on Twitter
This is a great thread but I want to touch on another dimension to this, which is the question of deterrence theory. 1/ https://twitter.com/sahrasulaiman/status/1336080871305068545
Deterrence theory has 2 components: (1) that increasing the certainty of punishment (i.e. more police) and (2) increasing the severity of punishment (i.e. more incarceration) produces deterrent effects. 2/
Gascon's election was a repudiation of the first prong of deterrence theory, but not the second. And that drives cops crazy. 3/
Cops and DA's who hate Gascon's vision attack him relentlessly for failing to punish severely enough thereby causing an urban decline in San Francisco. Their attacks get really absurd really fast. 4/
On the other hand, Gascon's supporters sometimes resort to defending his record by blaming police clearance rates, which essentially says there would be less crime if there were more cops -- validating one prong of deterrence theory but not the other. 5/
The problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes people are rational actors who consider the consequences of their actions before committing a crime, when in fact we know that's simply false, a fantasy really. 6/
Most people who end up being prosecuted and incarcerated were under the influence at the time, or suffered from mental illness. That's according to the DOJ. So for the vast majority of people caught in the system, policing or punition would have probably had no effect. 7/
Deterrence theory is deeply embedded in the criminal legal system because it's been reinforced by a culture that's been unwilling to question it, and has given it the quality of "common sense." 8/
Which is why Gascon's speech today felt so courageous. It suggests a major paradigm shift, one that has deep roots but opened up in 2016 with Krasner's memo, and is now striving to make deep narrative changes that, in my opinion, have great transformative potential. /end
