On with Kara Swisher - Conservative or Liberal? This Prosecutor Refuses to Be Put in a Box

Episode Date: February 6, 2023

From Donald Trump to George Floyd and Tyre Nichols, the last five years have changed our national conversation about public safety and policing. That’s particularly true in San Francisco, where progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin lost his seat in a heated recall election last year, and today’s guest — SF District Attorney Brooke Jenkins — stepped into the powerful role. In the months since she assumed office, the Black and Latina DA has spoken of the city’s “lawlessness,” revoked plea deals, allowed more teenagers to be prosecuted as adults and pushed for more policing of drug dealing. Her critics say she’s too conservative for the notoriously liberal city. She says she’s creating consequences for those who break the law.  As Kara tells Jenkins, “Only in a city like San Francisco could they call you a conservative.” You can find Kara and Nayeema on Twitter @karaswisher and @nayeema.  Or email us! [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Constant Contact. If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you, Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by their expert live customer support. It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.

Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you're making content that no one sees? And it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot.

It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is Law & Order with 100% Less Lenny Briscoe. Oh, I love Lenny Briscoe so much. Just kidding.

This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Naeem Araza. Dum-dum. Is that how you do the dum-dum? No, dum-dum. No, you know, I'm going to tell a very brief dumb-dumb story. When I was pregnant with my son, Louis, I used to watch Lenny Briscoe over and over. Like when I sat, I was enormously pregnant and I used to get a sandwich, put it on my stomach, which was gigantic and watch Law and Order. And every time dumb-dumb happened, Louis flipped.

You know, I worked with Dick Wolf for a bit. Oh, really? That must have been something. Well, Dick is a very interesting person because you definitely don't want to go up against him. And Ice-T once told a story saying basically he loves working with Dick Wolf because Dick is a gangster like him. And I think he said something like, if you go into a salary negotiation with Dick, you get the next week's script and you're dead. Oh, wow. Just, you know, one way to negotiate. Yeah.

It's like, I think Shonda Rhimes does something like this. It's a cold case. By that, it was a good show, too. But our interview today is with a real-life DA, not just someone who plays one on TV. Brooke Jenkins is San Francisco District Attorney, a seat that Vice President Harris held a decade ago. Yes. I knew her. That's when I met her.

And Chesa Boudin most recently held that position. He's very progressive, and he was recalled last year. Jenkins, who worked for Boudin before quitting and then working to recall him, is really an interesting figure because she's a black DA who is painted by some progressives as just being too tough on crime. Right. Kara, what do you make of that? You know, I'm considered conservative in San Francisco,

and I am not conservative. So, you know, essentially, I think she's a very canny, and the way she handled this was really interesting. I think she did a perfect attack on this guy in terms of having a lot of credibility, leaving, being very loud in the leaving, and then working to get rid of him. Yeah, and we thought it's a really important conversation to have right now about public

safety because, you know, this is really a national debate. This isn't a San Francisco issue that we should get to the San Francisco of it. But Republicans are using crime as a wedge issue and Democrats are kind of divided about what to do with it. And you saw this in the Glenn Youngkin campaign. I think you called that election when we spoke about it. You were like, Glenn Youngkin's going to win because of crime, right? You know, we did an interview with Mayor Breed. This is sort of part two to that because she's also a woman of color. She's much tougher on crime.

She grew up in these areas where there's a lot of crime. And, you know, she's pushing back against a more progressive group of white people, essentially, mostly white, not everybody's white. And so I think it shows again and again how easy it is to get people going on this thing if you use it cynically the way the Republicans are. But people want to feel safe in their homes. They want to feel safe in their cars. But it feels like the streets are out of control. And you make gains, especially with suburban women, if they feel unsafe because of their kids or various things. And so it's a very important issue to be thinking about whichever side you're on.

You just said something interesting about how Republicans are portraying it kind of deceptively. What do you mean by that? You know, it goes way back to the Willie Horton situation that Lee Atwater used against Michael Dukakis. So I think it works. It's a terrible thing because it's got racial tropes and all kinds of things. But it's not just everybody. People who live in the Tenderloin feel under siege. And so that's what's important here. And it hits at you that you're not safe in your home or your car or you're walking down the street. Yeah. And there's something you were

hinting at earlier, which is in San Francisco, there's this public display of progressiveness, but people privately do feel unsafe. And I saw that when I lived in San Francisco, everybody in my neighborhood had like the do not build signs up and they were very progressive. But then on next door and the things they were saying were like majorly paranoid and mildly racist sometimes, you know? Yeah. When you have people for really progressive people, that live in an area that's much safer, and I always joke about Pacific Heights, which is a beautiful part of San Francisco. I call it specific whites. You've got to have a sort of more citywide view of what's happening. And again, the tender line, and you know what it's like.

I know what it's like. And Brooke Jenkins is going to talk about this. I think she makes a point that it's very important to have safety. And yet the question remains, how can you police well? And that's such a tough question, particularly in light of what's happening right now in Memphis with Tyree Nichols, the young father who died last month. I mean, the city has handled that very efficiently. The police officers have been dismissed by the mayor, emergency fire and medical workers have been dismissed because they didn't fill their obligation of care. Kara, obviously, we're not experts in policing at all, but have you been following the case? Sure. Of course, it's tragedy, and especially because you can see it all right in front of you. The same thing that happened many times. But is there something at the heart of how we think

about policing that, even though there's been reforms and everything else, that it almost feels intractable? It's really about power. Yeah, yes, it is. Yeah. It's about power. And I mean, the technology has changed how we see that power play out. But to your point about some bad police officers, Christian said something, Christian Castro one of our producers said something interesting to me yesterday.

He said, people are always saying it's a few bad apples, a few bad apples. But the second part of the idiom, which I didn't know, because it's not my first language, but Kara, do you know the second part? Spoil the whole barrel. Yeah. And that's true of anyone who has apples. That's exactly what happens. And so, yeah, it does. It creates this idea of power. It is about power. It is. It's something we've got to really rethink beyond defund the police or police are great. There's something very, we've got to fix this in a lot of ways and maybe it's unfixable. Yes. And while we talked to Jenkins about policing broadly, and we didn't ask her about Tyree because it's not her jurisdiction and because we taped

this interview a couple of weeks ago. But we had lots of other things to speak to her about. Including her unique path to power and the politicization of public safety and how Donald Trump changed the conversation at a national level. So let's take a quick break and we'll be right back with the interview. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.

And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other.

We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself

at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. according to Indeed data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Welcome, Brooke Jenkins. Thank you, and thank you for having me. So you got your seat after the recall of Chesa Boudin. You worked with him for almost a year, and I would say when I'm looking back at the things, your departure was a big deal.

almost a year. And I would say when I'm looking back at the things, your departure was a big deal. I know you had a bunch of issues around your husband's cousin was killed and how the prosecution of that ones. I know you won a case, a murder case, and you had some issues over an insanity plea where the guy got off. So talk a little bit so people can understand what led you to leave the office where you were in the homicide unit. Yes, and I was working under Chesa for about a year and a half before I decided to leave. And what I had noticed through, again, my own personal experiences, both the case involving our family member and more certainly the case that I was handling, was that he was wedded to his ideology and that there wasn't going to be a discussion about doing things any differently. Right.

Considering someone else's viewpoint, particularly those who had been doing this job for years. Yeah, and you had been there and you were, what did you call it? You really had a lot of regard for George Gascon. Correct. That's where he started. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah.

So define his ideology for us because you do agree on a lot of things. You're painted as more of a conservative. I don't, only in San Francisco could they call you a conservative, but go ahead. Yes, I think I agreed with the spirit of some of the things that he was pushing for to strive to make the system more fair. But you can't dismantle the DA's office in order to accomplish that. I think when you've never represented victims in this system. He was a public defender.

Correct. It's easy to dismiss their need for advocacy in the courtroom, and I just couldn't go along with that. Walk me through, because you agree on diversion programs. You think incarcerations are too high. You believe there's racism in the system. These are all similar things. So what do you mean by dismantling the office?

I believe that when you give people opportunities for alternatives to incarceration, racism in the system. These are all similar things. So what do you mean by dismantling the office? I believe that when you give people opportunities for alternatives to incarceration, it has to be done responsibly. You have to afford those opportunities to people who represent clearly that they are committed to changing their lives. When you just hand people a free pass, when you say, I don't believe there should be punishment of any sort for anything. That's not reform. And so what I saw was a desire by Chesa and those who he brought in was simply to funnel cases out of the system with little to no consequence. Not all cases, now to be fair. You would say most cases, not heinous cases, not more difficult cases, but give the example what happened to you with the two cases, one affecting your own family and one that you were prosecuting.

Explain what happened. He had heinously murdered his mother in cold blood. And the jury found him guilty. The jury had to evaluate whether or not he was insane at the time, which means he didn't understand right from wrong at the time. And Chesa decided that he wanted to go with the opinion of his former colleague at the public defender's office rather than have a discussion with me about the facts and circumstances of this case and of this defendant. That, to me, is reckless. Right. And did that would cause it or was it also the case with your husband's cousin who was shot, a bystander in a gang shooting? I would say that that was a contributory factor. Of course, that had happened in 2020.

I didn't quit after that. I wanted to focus on my cases. I still had to provide, obviously, a living for my family, those sorts of things. But at the point at which I couldn't even represent to a victim that I was doing everything in my power to assist them and to fight for justice, I wasn't going to go along with what he wanted. So this is the idea of focusing in on victims. But bad outcomes for victims and families seem to be one thing that you felt wasn't focused in on. It's something I talk with Mayor London Breed about bad outcomes from the people in the Tenderloin, for example, that were in the midst of a crime spree there and very severe drug problems

in that neighborhood. So here's what I would say. Not only was there a decriminalization of certain crimes unilaterally by the DA's office, which shouldn't be the case, drug dealing being included, right? But also, no regard for the fact that the outcome of a case affects the victim's view of justice and actually their ability to receive justice. And ultimately, their viewpoint didn't matter is what I felt. And so I wasn't going to represent to victims that outcomes that he was pushing forward were what I agreed with when I didn't. Did you think that you were characterized as

too conservative? I talk about that because Scott Weiner, who I know, he was a representative of my neighborhood in the Castro, said it's funny that you were seen as conservative or tough on crime in a different way. Explain what you think you're like. You know, I think that there was a faction who wanted to try to discredit me who couldn't think of another argument to make, quite frankly. I'm a person of color. I'm half Latina. I'm half black. And you grew up in the East Bay. I grew up in the East Bay. You're an East Bay girl. Yes, absolutely. I've had, like I've told people very openly, I've had family members, people that I know come through the San Francisco Hall of Justice with cases. I know what that feels like to watch people that you love be offered

plea deals that you believe are unfair, to see disparate policing happen to people in my family. That's something that I've experienced personally, but that doesn't mean that we throw away our criminal justice system. We certainly have to improve it, right, in the way that people are treated within this system. But you can't disregard victims. You can't disregard people's behavior in order to do that. You have to balance, right, what is fair for the victim and what is fair for the defendant. So when you think about that, do you think that's unfair to be characterized in being concerned about the victim and being considered tough on crime as a woman of color? Mayor Breeden and I talked about this.

She sort of took aim at some of the supervisors in that case. This is the prosecutor's office, that they didn't know what it was like to live like that. They didn't understand it and therefore could be very generous with criminals, in other words. Well, right. If you're not living in the neighborhoods that are most affected by crime, then it's easy for you to say, oh, just give that person a pass. But when you go into the black community in particular, even in San Francisco, when you go into the Tenderloin and you talk to people on the ground, they will tell you they want boundaries drawn. They want accountability.

Do they want it to be fair? Yes, absolutely. Do they want policing? Yes. Do they want policing that is fair and objective? Yes, absolutely. But I think there are people who believe that they speak for us when they shouldn't be, right? We have a voice and we know very much what we feel and what we see and what we think. And so I have at times felt as though people have tried to silence that voice in the name of speaking for us with utter disregard for the fact that I come from the very cultures and communities that they purport to want to represent. Why does that exist here in San Francisco? Because it really does. I believe that it's become popular for certain people to present themselves as advocates for, in particular, the black community in order for them to gain some sort of appeal from their constituents or from the public. What most people don't understand is that, again, we can speak for ourselves. And that oftentimes these people don't actually accurately convey what we truly believe.

But it's for their own appearance to be fair-minded. Who are those people? Is it the defund movement, progressives? You know, I don't want to call out anyone in particular. So, like I said, I think there are people who identify themselves as sort of the champions of the movement for particularly black and Latino people, but who don't live in our communities, don't come down into our communities to talk to people or even bring them to the table. But you have to be specific. No, I'm not trying to call out anyone specific. Quite frankly, I think we need to shift in this city to all working together.

What makes it difficult to do that, from your perspective? I think anytime we have... Because it's not, by the way, let me just point out, just for people who don't know, it's not Republican versus Democrat. It's moderates versus more progressives, really. It's pretty liberal in this city still, but go ahead. Correct. And so I think anytime we have a situation where people draw the line in the sand based on identity politics and refuse to ever compromise or cross over is where we run into those problems. And I think we just have to improve our ability citywide to set our identities aside, right? And say, what is best for this city as a whole and not for me as the politician,

not for my agenda, but for San Francisco, because they're depending on us. How do you get to that? That's a good question. I'm still figuring that out. Okay. What would you call yourself? How would you characterize your ideology? Very balanced, very in the middle.

I had a reporter recently tell me, you know, I can't put you in a box. I keep trying to put you somewhere on the line, and I can't. You know, we shouldn't have boxes, but she said, you know, I look at some of your policies and they are a little bit, you know, more tough and strict on certain areas. And then I look at others and they're very much reform-minded and progressive. And I said, yes, that's what I've been telling you is that I wanted to bring balance into this system. We have to have boundary lines. We have to enforce the law.

That doesn't mean that we can't still work on making this system more fair. So I want to talk about the fairness of the system in a second, but the recall effort you moved right in, and it was funded by billionaires, quite a bit. David Sachs, Republican William Oberndorf. You were paid by some of them. You worked for nonprofits having to do with it. Did that worry you that that's who was funding this?

One thing that I want to clarify is that, yes, while they were two of the donors, there were many donors. But there were certainly a number of, you know, well-known Democrat donors, one of whom donated more than Bill Obendorf to the recall, who, of course, was conveniently left out of the conversation. That didn't really bother me from the standpoint that I knew truly what was going on inside. This isn't about politics. This job is not political. When you're a prosecutor, you walk in not thinking about politics. You think about fairness, justice. And so when I walked away, it wasn't about who's donating what, who's on what side. This is about what I see going on and something that I fundamentally disagree with.

And so you were with people because it has become it is political. DAs are political. Crime is political. It's become a wedge issue across the country. It's dividing Democrats. The same thing. Is that probably is that worrisome to you that that becomes the political wedge issue when it should be justice, correct? Yes. Never is. Yes. And I've often said, I don't ever want to view this role through the lens of politics. I don't want to make decisions through the lens of politics. I want to make decisions that I think are right for the people, right? For the people of the state of California, for the people in San Francisco, for each and every case, what is best. And I shouldn't be worried about what political implications there are or whether or not somebody's going to consider me to be a conservative or a progressive. But that's not true. I mean, because in New York, Democrats lost because they seemed, I guess, light on crime, being too progressive on crime.

Is it a problem when this becomes a wedge issue, crime becomes a wedge issue? Because I don't know if it's a wedge issue in San Francisco. It's just much discussed, right? It's an issue that gets over, made into a trope by a conservative like Fox News. Most of the city is okay. But go ahead. I think that's a recent phenomenon. As I was campaigning, I ran into somebody who was asking me about a policy of mine. And I said, if I asked you two of George Gascon's policies,

if I said, what was his policy on trying juveniles as adults? What was another policy of his? Could you tell me? And they looked at me and they said, absolutely not. And I said, but yet we are here discussing in great detail, right, every single policy that I've announced thus far. And so I think there's a spotlight on these issues that I think, yes, is positive to some extent because the public is more involved and they're paying attention. But I do think it's being used politically in a way that is unhealthy for this particular system. And talk about this, because you talk about lawlessness as a word. That's not a word you hear Democrats use a lot, right?

That's become a trope for Republicans to do it, often unfairly, right? But Donald Trump depicted cities across the countries as dangerous. Has that perception stuck? And does that make it worse for you as a prosecutor to be more tough on crime? I certainly think that it's stuck because of all the videos that were going viral of people stealing from Walgreens and doing other things. And so I think that that contributed to this Republican argument, right, that San Francisco is the pinnacle of crime because of the fact that it's a progressive liberal city. Do I think we've had an issue with lawlessness in San Francisco? Yes. Does that mean there's no area or time where you're safe? Absolutely not. And so for me... What does lawlessness mean to you from your

perspective? Utter disregard for the law. People not feeling deterred whatsoever from committing crime in this city, thinking that whether the police are driving by even, it doesn't matter because nothing's going to happen to me. And so when you see on the whole people walking into stores and picking up shelves of items and walking out, not fearing any consequence, that to me represents lawlessness. Is there one crime that really struck you? Is it the drug dealing? Is it just seeing these videos? Because you have apps like Citizen

that allow people to post when they see a crowd or a next door, which have all kinds of issues. But do they get this perception that danger lurks around every corner? I certainly think the drug dealing, not only by perception, but in reality, is an extreme problem in the city. When you're in the Tenderloin, you can't help but notice it.

Correct. And these people that live there are suffering. Which is also in D.C., where I live most of the time. And so, but that, as well as the retail theft, which I don't have to watch a video to see. I experience it when I go into the store myself. I still shop. I live here. And I've seen numerous people walk out with items unapologetically.

And that for me is a problem, especially when I'm meeting with retailers who are saying, we are now in the red, right, because we have more theft than we have revenue. And that they would rather leave our city than stay in business. That can't happen. One, we need the jobs that those retail stores provide to our residents, and we need to have access to goods. And we need the sales tax that comes from people shopping. So these aren't minor crimes to you?

They're nonviolent crimes most of the time. to you? These aren't... They're nonviolent crimes most of the time. But in the aggregate, when you have it at such a large volume and on such a large scale, it's something that I have to take very seriously. And how do you take that seriously? What is your goal in stopping that, deterring that? One, again, we have to have consequences for people's actions. And I've made it clear, consequences don't necessarily always mean jail or prison. For some, it means you're going to go to drug treatment. You have the opportunity to go to drug treatment. You can choose a different route. We want you to get the help that you need. It also means working with retailers and the police to strategize on how we can prevent theft in the first place. I talk to retailers about what we need from them as

prosecutors to assist us in the prosecution so that we talk to retailers about what we need from them as prosecutors to assist us in the prosecution so that we have access to evidence and witnesses. So that's, for me, what it looks like. But certainly, as the DA, we have to reinstitute consequences for people's bad behavior. And basic policing that would cause it. One of the things Chase Abudin did was diversion programs. These are diverting people that are on smaller crimes or don't go through the system four, five, six times. They're diverted to other things. You have not focused as much on them, but how do you look at a diversion program? Statutorily, these misdemeanor crimes are eligible for diversion.

That's not something that I or he as the DA created. That's not something that I or he as the DA created. But I certainly am more concerned with who is getting sent into those diversion programs, whereas he was much more loose and lenient about it. I think that it should be for low-level offenders when we're talking about something like a diversion where they're only required to go to anger management classes or theft classes. And so I think we should be thoughtful about who gets those opportunities. San Francisco's violent crime rate is at the low end of a major city. Crime numbers jump, as you said, in property crime, burglary, 67% of the average big cities in 2020, at least. Motor vehicle theft, higher.

Robbery, higher. What do you think is the most effective thing in bringing those numbers down? More arrests, more cops on the beat, more consequences that are actually real rather than not really? I think it's a combination of all of those factors. The system has to work holistically. And so that means having more patrols, having more officers visible who deter people from, you know, robbing somebody on the corner if they see a police officer right there. We also need more officers available to respond in real time to investigate these crimes. But at the same time, we have to function as both a deterrent as a DA's office that people actually say, you know what, it's not worth

it for me to do that because the DA's office, if they catch me, right, if they prosecute me, is going to make sure that I have a penalty. Not going to let you off and be lenient. Are there any cities getting this right? Do you see any cities that are doing that that don't become too policed, I guess? I don't have a specific city in mind. You know, I've tried to look at other jurisdictions and see what I believe is working well for them in certain areas. But I think we're all trying to figure out what the balance is. There are a number of progressive prosecutors around the country trying to work that balance between accountability and yet instituting reform. So one of the big problems, obviously, in San Francisco and elsewhere is homelessness. Majority in San Francisco.

How does that conflate with crime? Because they're not the same thing. No, it's not illegal to be unhoused. Right. And so it's something that I think is difficult for the public to understand, not to understand, but certainly they want to talk to me about it because they want something done. I think I don't play much of a role unless and until, right, it becomes a situation where somebody is. Drug dealing, et cetera. Doing, right, illegal things on the street.

But certainly it gives the appearance when we have so many encampments of disorder, I think, in our city. Right, right. So last year in New York, Mayor Adams cracked down on a number of homeless people in the subway in an effort to build confidence of safety. I think people were worried about this sort of idea of safety. You do feel unsafe. And he's focusing on mental illness and homelessness, including hospitalizing people who are a danger to themselves, even if they don't want to go. Is that something you would be involved in or not? Unless it rises to a criminal offense. But it obviously creates a perception of disorder, as you said. Yes. And so, no, our office does not get involved unless someone has committed a crime. We certainly play a role in conservatorships and, you know, conducting those trials for people who truly cannot take care of themselves. But we are actively working with the city to look at how these care courts are going to play out that the governor, you know, just signed a bill for, which will impact those who have not committed a crime and are breaking the law but simply can't care for themselves and need help. All right. But you've only been in office for seven months.

Crime numbers haven't changed a great deal yet. The number of arrests police have presented your office has jumped. What is driving that? You have said you want officers to, quote, know that it's worthwhile for them to do their work. The city, quite frankly, is imploring them to do more. I've tried to communicate to them, not only through the media, but directly that very statement, because that is what I hear from the public.

And so I think, hopefully, that I've been able to reinvigorate them to do their work at that highest level, that they see that it's worth it, that they see that when they make an arrest and they give us a case that's been properly investigated, that we will ensure the appropriate form of accountability. Because when you go out and you risk a lot, right, you risk your personal safety at times to do that job and to feel as though it's meaningless. That can be frustrating. Do you have enough resources? I know there's been a decline in police employment across the country. No, I think they're down 600 officers. We need more. And you said something earlier about not wanting to become a police state. I certainly have noticed that now for us to go to the grocery store or to the mall or to shop, that everybody's relying upon police presence in order to feel safe to do that. And it's sad that we've gotten to that.

I certainly don't want to live that way. But unfortunately, that's where we're at. We need more on the street in order to sort of get this situation under control, and we don't have enough. in order to sort of get this situation under control, and we don't have enough. What I've tried to do is change the narrative also that, again, we don't want abusive police. We don't want racist cops. We don't want any of that, right? We want proper policing, but we need police to do the job. We'll talk about fentanyl for a minute because you focused on drug dealers,

particularly dealers of fentanyl since July. Why do you think going after those dealers, especially low-level dealers, is effective is the answer? I think you have to go at it again from all angles. If we only go for the huge cartel up at the top and we leave the street. Distributors or even manufacturers. If we leave everybody on the street to continue to sell, that's not a great strategy either. And so we have to work to decrease supply and demand. And so we have to make sure that those who are suffering from addiction get help, get into treatment so that they are not out on the street seeking to buy fentanyl and other drugs. And at the same time, not having it where when

they are in treatment and they come outside, that every 10 feet they're confronted by somebody trying to sell them drugs. And so we have to be tackling both at the same time in order to really get at the root of this problem and to improve the situation. I think in the meantime, yes, because of how deadly fentanyl is, we have to save lives, which is why I've said I will support safe consumption sites so long as they're a place where it's responsibly done and that's not surrounded by drug dealers outside the front doors. But I think most certainly we have to be hitting this from all angles. And if you had to pick, is that you think the most vexing problem for you as a prosecutor is the fentanyl sales that then lead to crime, that then lead to everything. Yes, it is certainly an ecosystem. Right?

The drug dealing begets the addiction. The addiction is what fuels people to go out and break into cars, to break into homes, businesses. It contributes to exacerbating mental health problems that then have people acting out in ways that they wouldn't if they weren't on drugs. And I just honestly don't know how anybody can walk through the Tenderloin or South of Market, see the people who are slumped over, right, high on fentanyl, and believe that leaving them there is compassion. We'll be back in a minute. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.

Out. Procrastination. Putting it off. Kicking the can down the road. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. but practicality alone isn't going to cut it. You want something a little more meaningful than a great can opener or a cozy pair of socks.

That's where Aura comes in. Wirecutter named Aura the number one digital picture frame, and it's not hard to see why. Aura's frames make it incredibly easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. And when you give an Aura frame as a gift, you can personalize and preload it with a thoughtful message and photos using the Aura app, making it an ideal present for long-distance loved ones. For a limited time, you can visit auraframes.com and get $45 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames by using promo code VOX at checkout. That's A-U-R-A frames dot com, promo code VOX. This exclusive Black Friday, Cyber Monday deal

is their best of the year. So don't miss out. Terms and conditions apply. One of the contras that you had as interim DA was Boudin had banned charging 16 to 17-year-olds as adults. You modified that so they can still be prosecuted for a number of heinous crimes. That hasn't happened yet, but why is it important to modify it even though it got a lot of backlash? Because we have 16 and 17-year-olds that do things

for which only a handful of years won't be enough to help rehabilitate them. Most people are unaware that if somebody is prosecuted in the juvenile system, that by the age of 24, they have to be released back into the public. There is no exception to that. And so when you're talking about a landscape of time where we have 16 and 17-year-olds committing mass shootings, right? I'm hard-pressed to find someone who would say that at 17, you shoot, you know, a classroom full of second graders, that you should be released by 24, right? That that would be sufficient time. That's an outlying case. Mostly, most of the cases aren't quite that heinous. So, but how do you then, why did you do it? I think as the DA, I can't foresee what the future holds. Who's to say, right, that we won't have a 17-year-old go do something like shoot up a classroom or go into a grocery store and shoot up people shopping?

And so since I can't foresee the future, I have to leave options on the table for if that were to happen one day because nobody expects that to happen. So it depends on the crime when they get to certain ages, 16, 17. Murder, attempted murder, forced sexual assaults, mayhem, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and torture are the only crime types where it's even on the table to be considered. And it has to be something heinous in that category. Right, right. Now, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg tried to limit jail time to only the most serious crimes when he came to office. He had to reverse the course a month later, pace of growing concern over gun possession, robberies, etc. Is criminal justice reform possible when safety has become such a big concern? Are those things diametrically opposed? They're absolutely not diametrically opposed.

But where you see the problems right now is that people are trying to make bright line rules. They're trying to say, you know, it's only this way. Never, never, ever will we do X for this situation. You can't have absolutes in that fashion in this world. Because what happens when some, you know, when a crime takes place and the public is calling for something different and where really it's appropriate to do something different. Right. Right. Do you stick to what you promised or do you do what's right? And so all I've come in and said is we can have both. Right. We can be more thoughtful. That's that's what my juvenile policy is. It's more thoughtful. It's saying, no, I could have chosen more than 27 crimes. The law allows us to prosecute juveniles as adults for 27 crimes. I said,

let's stick with what is the worst because that is moving the ball forward with respect to more fairness with reform. But it still lets us make sure that we're in a position to promote public safety the way that we need to. Do you ever worry about a potential recall? Does it put pressure on you to be tougher or play your role or show immediate results? I wouldn't say the fear of a recall puts that pressure on me. I want to save San Francisco. I want to fix San Francisco. And when I drive around the city that I live in and I see corners and neighborhoods and areas that need improvement. That's where the pressure comes from. The pressure comes from sitting in a room in the Tenderloin full of residents who are in tears saying, we can't live this way anymore.

That's where the pressure comes from. And knowing that the solution is not simply swinging the pendulum to the other extreme, right, to lock everybody up, but sitting at the table in my office and figuring out what is the balance here? How do we make these people's lives better? Right. Right? Who are suffering but not rely on what is the historical tool that our office has used in the past. And so it is a pressure from within. So one of the things with a lot of these recalls and everything else,

the distrust or distaste for government and that government can't do anything, how difficult does that make you to do your job? Again, DAs, as I said, haven't been immune to politics. Maybe they should be more so. Maybe it shouldn't get dragged into the public sphere as much. How do you build public trust back? I think you be transparent with the public. One thing that I try to do is to explain what my abilities are, but also what my limitations are. I try to be transparent about, even if it's something that's not in my lane or in my purview, what I feel about it, and tell them ways that I can advocate for their positions.

Or when maybe I disagree with a position, but I explain why. And I think that's what people need to hear. They need people to be honest with them who have signed up and been elected to represent them. Don't tell me one thing and then go into your back room and do something else. And so I think for me, what people have indicated they appreciate is that I'm willing to be upfront about what I truly believe. And that's what I'm always going to give San Francisco. But when you look back at it, do you think recall was the best way to do this? Because it sort of puts everyone, the whole recall movement is troubling in some fashion, although she should be last resort and it feels like first resort, whether it was Gavin Newsom or this one that worked or others. Is that something that

hangs over the head of public officials or should? I don't think necessarily that it hangs over our head simply because it's happened three times in the last year, but God knows when it had happened before. But I certainly think that we should be aware that if you refuse to do the job that you've been elected to do, that the public has recourse. Yes, that should be something in the back of our minds. And you don't think that's a dangerous, speaking of slopes? I don't think it's as dangerous as people are trying to make it out to be simply because we've had these recent recalls. I mean, when you look at a situation in the DA's office, like I said, that's the only one I'm speaking to right now. When you had somebody who was refusing to acknowledge what his constituency was telling him and what was asking him to do across the city, that's where the people felt, well, then we have no other recourse.

So now, my last question, you grew up in Union City in Fremont, is that correct? And then you went to Berkeley, where you were a runner, right? Or a track runner, right? You graduated University of Chicago Law School. You did work in corporate law before you lost your firstborn son, who you named Justice. What a wonderful name in a premature birth. You said it reprioritized you. And then you had two more kids after that, young kids now. Talk about your reprioritization now. After Justice's death, I had to find purpose

in my life. And at the time, I didn't know what that was. I thought it was going to be a mother. But what I found was that wanting to be an advocate for other people, ultimately, I couldn't start off in homicide, but I ultimately wanted to be an advocate for people who too had buried their children, but just for different reasons. And so for me, the priority is creating an environment now where kids can grow up and thrive. Like I said, where kids have hope that they are a part of this American dream and that they can touch it. And I think so often our office has been looked at as a place that only penalizes people, right? Only imposes consequences on people.

And what I want to see as a part of this reform is making sure that we prevent crime. And what I want to see as a part of this reform is making sure that we prevent crime. And the way that we can prevent crime is giving our children access to hope and access to what they need in order to succeed in life. Because I have two little kids, right, that will grow up black in America and who I'm trying to instill that hope in. But I don't want to just stick to my own. I want everybody to feel that they have that. So what do you think in making that difference is that there's another thing? Because you do sound a little like I interviewed Kamala Harris when she was DA. She's now vice president of the United States.

Do you see yourself running for higher office, mayor perhaps? That has not been a part of my thought process. I tell you, I never envisioned being a politician at all. But here you are. And here I sit. Not bad at it, I see. Seem to be a natural. For me, I just want to help San Francisco. I've promised San Francisco that I'm going to do everything in my power to get this city to the place that we know it should be. You very deftly avoided what I just said. Are you interested in running for mayor? Oh, no.

No. No. Not at all? No. Any higher office? Because that's where you really do make the difference, presumably. I will tell you right now that it's not something I have given any thought to. I am seven months into learning politics.

I tell you it's like a knife fight in a phone booth here in San Francisco. That's violent. It's a terrible idea. You don't have phone booths anymore because of the tech bros. But I do remember. Yeah, me too. I'm getting my feet wet, and I don't have any higher aspirations right now. So what would you consider success, say 2024 comes along, what would you consider successful from your better crime stats?

I know that you're working on a lot of high-profile cases, the Paul Pelosi attack, for example, which was unusual. What would you consider successful from your perspective? That people feel safer. that people feel safer that people feel safer that when I go into these community meetings they're telling me they see an improvement on the block that they've been complaining about for the last two years or with the graffiti problem that they've experienced for the last three years having them tell me they have seen progress and so so, you know, when I look at statistics, of course, they're an indicator. I wouldn't rely on those, you know, in whole, because one thing that I've done is encourage people to report crime more, because I think

now they can trust that we, as law enforcement agents, will do our jobs more effectively. But I certainly feel that people need to see a difference and feel a difference on the street. When I drive through the city, I know where certain pockets are, where there are extreme problems. And I hope that as time goes on up through 2024, that I see a difference. And I'm starting to see that on certain corners, but we need to see it more. People feel safer. Okay. Can I ask you one last question?

What happened to the guy who was shooting the water at the homeless person? You know, I thought I was going to get out of here without talking about that one. Sorry, but you have to talk about that one. This is a store owner who had said he had a lot of problem with this particular homeless person for a long time and finally turned a hose on them. It's a very complex case, but at the same time, visually, pretty. He's been charged with battery. Certainly, we don't want to see someone using any vessel, right, to offensively touch someone else. But he will be treated through the system like he should be, right? Whatever the appropriate form of his accountability might be. But they're looking and prosecuting him.

Right. And I've said, look, we all understand that this problem with encampments and the unhoused has become growingly frustrating for residents and business owners in San Francisco. That's certainly not something I'm going to ignore or pretend doesn't exist. But, you know, when I saw that image, it took me back to, right, Jim Crow South. And I don't think that we should take it there. And so, you know, we only charge what crime we believe happens. And so that's why we've ended up charging this case. But, you know, we have thousands of cases in our office, and we're going to treat everybody the way that they appropriately should be treated, given their particular situation. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. I really appreciate it. The challenging thing is when you ask people who are going to run for office, if they aren't going to run, they say no.

And if they are going to run, they also say no. So we never know who's going to run for office, if they aren't going to run, they say no. And if they are going to run, they also say no. So we never know who's going to run for office. She hasn't thought of it. She hasn't thought of it. She hasn't spent a minute. She's busy. I'm going to make a super cut of all the ways in which people have told us they're not going to run for office. I know.

We had a bunch of them at the Code Conference, all the people who are going to run for office saying they hadn't thought of it for one second. Anyway, she's a really impressive lawyer and, of course, very canny too, obviously. I think she's complex and I think that's what's hard for people. They can't peg her. And, you know, politics, no matter, even if you're in San Francisco, everyone wants to peg you and put you in, as she said, a box. And there's no way she's going in one or she's going to do what she wants to do. And I think that's... Yeah, she refused to answer that question. What is said, a box, and there's no way she's going in one, or she's going to do what she wants to do. And I think that's... Yeah, she refused to answer that question. What is she, a moderate? Yeah, well, I think that is, in a lot of ways, the way really successful politicians should be. Like, you're not going to stick me in one,

I'm not ultra-liberal, I'm not not liberal, I'm not this, I have different opinions. And I appreciate that. She also had a philosophy behind it. She said, you know, she kind of talked about being dragged down by identity politics, or the country being dragged down by identity politics. And I think she answered that question incisively and dodged it incisively. And the truth is, I mean, we heard the same thing from Mayor London Breed, the San Francisco mayor who appointed Brooke Jenkins as DA initially. there are people trying to explain my community to me. There are people trying to explain how things should be. And she obviously dodged defining who those people are to her same point about identity politics. But I think this is the reality of we live in a world where if you're a person of color, a woman of color,

you can be more bold on certain things. You are going to be pegged as being a traitor to certain people. But you're also going to have,gged as being a traitor to certain people. But you're also going to have, you know, just like mansplaining. I don't know what it is, but othersplaining to you your own experience or what your view should be. So she is hearing from people left and right. She should be more progressive. I think that London Breed, Mayor Breed, was talking about liberal white people on the council who don't live in that neighborhood. And she's like, I'm from there.

Don't tell me. And I thought that's what she was essentially saying. Yeah. And she has the mandate. They have the mandate to do this. So good for them. The last thing I thought was super interesting was her success metric being perception of safety. So not an indicator, but a sense. Well, you know, it's never as unsafe as you think it is, never as safe as you think it is in cities. Listen, I don't want to undercut. There's way too much petty crime here, way too much car break-ins, way too much burglary,

robberies, et cetera, compared to other places. No question. Absolutely no question. But sometimes when, you know, especially people who watch Fox, who I happen to know, they're like, oh, it's really unsafe. I'm like, when did you get mugged precisely? And they're like, never. And I'm like, so never.

Like, because I've never been that, you know. And so you sort of. I've been chased down streets in San Francisco. You have. I have been. I know you have. You get chased down a lot of cities. I know. What am I doing wrong? I don't know. But I think it's the perception is important. I think that's actually the thing, is that perception can reshape the reality. In New York, for example, right now, it feels safer. And as soon as it started feeling safer, more people were on the subway. And then it started being safer because more people were on the subway. So I think that is a really interesting metric. But at the same time, you have all these tech, like Citizen, et cetera, which are really jamming people's perception of what safety is. Yeah, I don't look at them. I just can't look at next door.

I don't look at them either. But I have many people who are triggered by their constant citizen alerts. Yep. I agree. Well, then turn it off. We should have Andrew Frame on the show, the CEO of that company. Anyway, great interview. I think she's really impressive. I think she's going to run for bigger office.

That's my feeling. I imagine she is. But she hasn't thought of it. Never occurred to her. All right. Well, Kara, you But she hasn't thought of it. Never occurred to her. Alright. Well, Kara, you want to read us out? Yes. Today's show was produced by Naeem Araza, Blake Nishik, Christian Castro-Rossell, and Rafaela Seward.

Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you get a ride in a cable car. If not, there's going to be a recall. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow and you can avoid that. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast

Network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more. Dun-dun. Dun-dun. Dun-dun. I don't know how to do the sound. You don't. Somebody had a tattoo of that. Did you see? There's like, dun-dun. Yeah, actually, let me do that again. And I'm Naima Raza. Dun-dun. Did I do that right? That's the end? No. That's the end. No, stop. You're hurting my ears.