The Bad Bet

[beej]

https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-soross-bad-bet

Soros gambled that he could swing district attorney elections by heavily funding candidates who favored his version of justice, which focuses on de-prosecution and decarceration in the name of racial equity. Prosecutors like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Kim Foxx in Chicago, George Gascón in Los Angeles, and Alvin Bragg in New York rode Soros's funding to victory.

In pursuing this strategy, Soros made some successful calculations and some mistakes—both leading to ruinous consequences for American cities.

Soros's initial evaluation was that American chief prosecutors were almost completely unconstrained in their ability to decide not to prosecute cases. When a prosecutor charges a defendant with a crime, the U.S. Constitution and rules of criminal procedure establish a series of checks and balances that act to constrain the powers of the prosecutor (for example, indictment or preliminary-hearing requirements, the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, appeals, and so on). But virtually no limitations existed on decisions not to prosecute a defendant, regardless of the facts or the law. While prosecutors traditionally exercised this discretion on a narrow, case-by-case basis, no apparent legal reason prevented Soros-backed prosecutors from declining to charge entire categories of crimes.

Soros was correct in his assessment of the negative discretion of chief prosecutors. Indeed, he was almost a decade ahead of the general public in recognizing this potent de-prosecution tool. The political world is now trying to catch up by establishing some guardrails for prosecutorial decision-making.

Soros's next calculation was that district attorney races could be won with a relatively modest investment. Most chief prosecutor elections were sleepy affairs, with district attorneys serving until they were ready to hand over authority to an experienced supervisor from within the office. Soros figured that a cash infusion for heavy media spending would allow previously unknown candidates that he favored to overwhelm any opposition in popular elections. Once again, he was right. For instance, in Philadelphia, Soros provided approximately $1.7 million in funding for the first campaign of then-unknown defense attorney Larry Krasner, who won the splintered Democratic primary for district attorney with 38 percent of the vote in an election where only 17 percent of eligible voters turned out. Because winning the primary almost ensures victory in heavily Democratic Philadelphia, Krasner effectively won with the approval of less than 7 percent of eligible voters, at a rough cost of $33 per vote—a canny targeted investment by Soros. In smaller jurisdictions, Soros-related entities might make donations of $20,000 or $100,000 to swing the elections. Consistent with his background as an investor, Soros had found a way to bet relatively small amounts of money and achieve outsize returns.

Soros's ultimate calculation was that he could make enough of these investments in radical prosecutors that it would cause a major shift in law enforcement in American cities. Once again, he proved prescient. Soros-backed candidates won elections in Manhattan, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, San Francisco, St. Louis, Dallas, Tampa, Denver, Orlando, the Northern Virginia suburbs surrounding the District of Columbia, and other population hubs. By one calculation, 20 percent of the population of the United States was covered by Soros-funded prosecutors, with an even heavier concentration in the urban cores. Critics may vehemently disagree with Soros's policies, but they must concede that he has been extraordinarily successful in implementing his battle plan.

However, it was at the height of his influence that the errors in Soros's reasoning began to appear. Soros's publicly stated premise was that the de-prosecution and decarceration reforms ushered in by his prosecutors would not degrade but in fact improve safety in American cities. That belief was a major miscalculation. In poor cities, homicides have spiked, including the largest single-year increase in American history in 2020, continued escalation in 2021, and lingering high rates of murder clustered in cities with progressive prosecutors even after the end of Covid restrictions. (Apologists who blame Covid for homicide increases should note that murders were rising in cities with progressive prosecutors before the pandemic hit.) In wealthy cities with Soros-backed prosecutors, like San Francisco and Austin, property crimes rose dramatically. Once-idyllic cities like Portland, now under the jurisdiction of Soros-backed chief prosecutor Mike Schmidt, have suffered from rising violent crime and property crime. Several progressive American cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia experienced mass shootings during Fourth of July celebrations. Cities under the influence of Soros-backed prosecutors are less safe than a decade ago. The promise of increased safety was an illusion.

Soros also premised his experiment in criminal justice on the belief that his preferred reforms would benefit minorities and disadvantaged people in American cities. However, the main victims of the rising homicide rates have been black Americans. Moreover, as businesses have fled increasingly lawless urban centers, the remaining residents have lost both their jobs and their local businesses.

[YoDoug]

The truth is actually more sinister. The global elite like Soros want to see the end of American freedom and capitalism. They want that wealth and power in their control. The push for de-prosecution and decarceration is really meant to destabilize our society to allow cover for their takeover. 

[beej]

The truth is actually more sinister. The global elite like Soros want to see the end of American freedom and capitalism. They want that wealth and power in their control. The push for de-prosecution and decarceration is really meant to destabilize our society to allow cover for their takeover. 

my general rule of thumb, is not to assign motive to actions but to simply judge the actions themselves whether good or bad. It makes for a much more peaceful life in my experience. But, whatever, this idea has been an abject failure in a several ways.

Not the least of which, is that minorities have taken the brunt of the violence done to them by the criminals that are not being prosecuted, because most crime is intra-racial.

 And one other failure if you want to look at this from the left's perspective is the amount of people who, afraid of high crime rates, have gone out and bought guns that otherwise would have had no interest in them. I personally know a lot of people who CC that would have never done that, 10 years ago.

[YoDoug]

And one other failure if you want to look at this from the left's perspective is the amount of people who, afraid of high crime rates, have gone out and bought guns that otherwise would have had no interest in them. I personally know a lot of people who CC that would have never done that, 10 years ago.

It has financially devastated businesses in many urban metro areas. People have seriously cut back on activities that brought revenue to those businesses. I know a lot of people that stopped going to Twins games and other places in the twin cities because they don't want the risk.

[beej]

It has financially devastated businesses in many urban metro areas. People have seriously cut back on activities that brought revenue to those businesses. I know a lot of people that stopped going to Twins games and other places in the twin cities because they don't want the risk.

absolutely. I never wanted to bother with concealed carry, I just choose not to go to places with high crime rates. But I'm fortunate to be able to choose that.

[gcode]

I just choose not to go to places with high crime rates

That used to be a valid defense strategy, but no longer.
In these days of lax to zero prosecution of criminal activity the high crime rates
will be coming to you.

We have a local guy who specializes in small business burglary.
They call him the Snake Bandit cause he'd break into small businesses and crawl around on the floor
to avoid motion detectors.
It took over a year to catch him, but they did.
He was charged with 35+ burglaries and sentenced to 12 years in state prison.
He was released in less than a month due to prison sentencing reform laws and he went straight back to "work".
As far as I know, he's still out there victimizing small businesses.

[RobertELee]

Howdafug can you go from 12 years to 1x month?!?!?!

Kali

[RobertELee]

Howdafug can you go from 12 years to 1x month?!?!?!

View this post on Instagram

[gcode]

Kali

yup

LA just changed to a no cash bail policy which should prove interesting.... and bloody 

[neurosis]

They call him the Snake Bandit

I had to look that up because it peeked my curiosity.    This is just crazy. 


https://abc7.com/snake-burglar-riverside-police-business-break-in-christopher-michael-jackson/13143897/

[gcode]

I had to look that up because it peeked my curiosity.    This is just crazy. 


https://abc7.com/snake-burglar-riverside-police-business-break-in-christopher-michael-jackson/13143897/

That article said he got 16 months... I don't think that is accurate..
It's also 4 months old and I think he's out and back at it.

[CNCAppsJames]

Howdafug can you go from 12 years to 1x month?!?!?!

Common Core math... duh!
 

[beej]

That article said he got 16 months... I don't think that is accurate..
It's also 4 months old and I think he's out and back at it.

sounds like he snaked out on that deal