That wasn't the question, how might you prioritize releasing the remaining 28% of 835? Given that we may following medical guidance hold only 600, & there are many more that you regularly complain need incarcerated failing your standard of complying w incoherent excessive law.
-
-
Replying to @netfire4 @michelletandler and
I answered the question - 600 is a guideline estimate. We get as close as we can while remaining confident that those paroled won't negatively impact the [already struggling] community I also don't advocate for incarceration - status quo is unacceptable but I'm open to solutions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SF_Shoobie @michelletandler and
Paul Retweeted Paul
So I was asking, how would you prioritize the release of the additional 235, and you answered more people should be incarcerated than we have currently, how is that answering the question?https://twitter.com/netfire4/status/1341089659120545792 …
Paul added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @netfire4 @michelletandler and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SF_Shoobie @michelletandler and
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?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @netfire4 @michelletandler and
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.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SF_Shoobie @netfire4 and
I'd respect DPH and their 600 inmates maximum recommendation but at the end of the day if I didn't have confidence that the community wouldn't be negatively impacted then there is no grounds for parole. Full stop.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SF_Shoobie @michelletandler and
Were currently in the position of the dph that holding them poses greater societal rick than releasing them. This agrees with guidance from throughout our judicial system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @netfire4 @SF_Shoobie and
This makes it impossible to both follow your guidance of releasing only those that pose no risk of committing relatively minor crimes and the guidance of the dph to release prisoners to the 600 maximum. We have to release car thieves to save our hospitals from being overwhelmed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @netfire4 @michelletandler and
I'm sorry, I believe that the public is dealing with enough already that I don't support the release of prisoners that we can't be confident wouldn't negatively impact the community. 600 is a recommended number, not a hard line.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Paul Retweeted David Menschel
Its a ceiling on how much our society might risk to indulge its punishment and slavery fetishes. To incarcerate people in this mass means overflowing ICU, increased lockdowns and mass death.https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/1272362171796647936 …
Paul added,
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.