"It's important to release violent criminals too" is too open a statement for me. I'd agree that in most circumstances (see: not a demonstrated repeat offenders) inmates who have been behind bars for decades have paid a significant debt to society and could be reviewed for parole
I think our communication is mixed up here. My point was to not get caught up on finding 235 inmates to parole, but rather form a baseline of confidence to apply to each inmate and parole as many as meet that bar while keeping confidence that this won't negatively impact society
-
-
As I initially said, I know you want more incarceration, but i was asking you to make the difficult choice that
@chesaboudin is faced with if he respects our@SF_DPH . So again, how would you prioritize which additional 235 you release? -
Lol I have explained a couple times how I would prioritize prisoners for parole. If I were
@chesaboudin, I wouldn't be caught up on reaching the 235 mark, but rather grant parole to as many as I could with confidence that they wouldn't negatively impact the community. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.