If you are referring to the “progressive prosecutors”, I suggest you actually spend some time to hear long-form interviews with them. They have a genuine interest in lower crime and crime rates; they just don’t believe that the current pattern of prosecutions and warehousing criminals together in mass numbers achieves the goals.
It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize their solutions and outcomes, but to say they have no interest in prosecutions is flat wrong.
California recently passed a law banning employees from confronting shoplifters, exempting trained security guards. So now businesses have to comply with this nonsense or be prosecuted for stopping crimes. I don't believe the state has any interest in prosecutimg crime.
I think the point should not be that we expect cashiers to stop criminals. Rather the issue is that the state forbids their intervention. Why should people be disallowed from protecting their private property?
If you are referring to the “progressive prosecutors”, I suggest you actually spend some time to hear long-form interviews with them. They have a genuine interest in lower crime and crime rates; they just don’t believe that the current pattern of prosecutions and warehousing criminals together in mass numbers achieves the goals.
It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize their solutions and outcomes, but to say they have no interest in prosecutions is flat wrong.
Chris Hayes interview with Chesa Boudin: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1307198