[lazyasciiart]

> prosecution decisions were being made not just on justice, safety, or public policy more broadly, but simply on a triage basis.

> When you start losing significant numbers of people, you lose the ability to set your own execution priorities; circumstances are making prosecutorial decisions. Foxx tried to put a brave face on it, but nobody was buying it.

So, circumstances were making prosecutorial decisions, and the new DA efforts to make fundamental changes did not fix those circumstances, and therefore all changes they made were considered to cause that state.

The office wasn't running. It is not the fault of the new guy that it keeps not running.

[tptacek]

If you assume office and things get worse, that is in fact on you! I'm not saying Foxx's predecessor was good; Foxx's predecessor was Anita Alvarez, who was herself a trainwreck in the opposite direction.

A problem I see all the time in these kinds of public policy debates is that people have ideological rooting interests. That isn't going to get you anywhere in a debate about a major metro prosecutor's office. You can't project out "this person was progressive therefore they were good" and you can't do "this person is a law-and-order tough-on-crime prosecutor so they're good" either. It's a very difficult job. Notably: I think you'd have a hard time finding credible people who believe Foxx did a good job in her office.

[lazyasciiart]

A problem I see all the time is that you are responding to a hell of a lot that I didn’t say.

[HDThoreaun]

The office was running. Not in a way the voters wanted but they were competent in accomplishing their goals. Then the new DA was elected and tons of people left and now the office isn’t running.

[lazyasciiart]

That is not my understanding.