SFist: Green Light for Justice Center?

mamcart

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:13:07 -0800

"As you point out, existing courts already have jurisdiction over these crimes, so what's the point of building a new one?" The point is to funnel non-violent and misdemeanor ("quality of life") offenses to a different channel that ends in services, so the people engaging in those acts get the help they need--which, so the theory goes, will make them stop those behaviors better than a night jail will. And correspondingly, the actual court system will have more time and resources to prosecute more serious offenses, such as violent crime. We all agree more time should be paid to those, right? (Full disclosure: it's not that I believe this will work perfectly, but it's better than ignoring one or the other kinds of crime, which seems to be what we have now.)

shazwozzle

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:21:26 -0800

Point well taken mamcart. I have to think, though, that there are much better ways of tackling these problems. As you point out, existing courts already have jurisdiction over these crimes, so what's the point of building a new one? I guess as long as they let the general public use the restrooms in the court it won't be a total waste.

fyodordos

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:49:06 -0800

As an open-air drug user, this makes me sad.

mamcart

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:59:31 -0800

Lest we forget, public urination & defecation, as well as drug use are still crimes in this city and should be prosecuted. Oh and by the way, not only are the punishments for anyone successfully prosecuted in this court rehab and services as opposed to jail time (to "address the root causes" as the kids like to say), but it will be a prime example to all those Yes-on-8 types around the state that Newsom's also "soft on crime" and hence not fit to be governor. Sounds like a win for everyone on all counts.

Brock Keeling

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:48:53 -0800

Thanks for the clarification, skibu666. And for not being a tool about it.

skibu666

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:40:55 -0800

Since Brock's comments on the vote didn't fully explain the vote here are some more details. The proposal to use the money instead for public health passed with a 6-4 majority. But since Newsom needs this piece of window dressing for his run for Governor he will of course veto it, and the Supes would need 8 votes to override the veto (not to "win" as Brock wrote). Luckily for Newsom, he has appointed three Supervisors and Dufty was appointed by Willie Brown, so the Mayor usually has the ability to prevent a veto override simply by calling in favors.