Well the simple solution is if low level offenders want to stay out of jail then don’t break the law. Misdemeanors are not all victimless petty crimes so jail needs to be an option. Otherwise laws are toothless.

‘Khandelwal said the City instead argues that booking people into SCORE will help people access services for homelessness or addiction. The Department of Public Defense (DPD) has “no confidence” that will happen given the department’s experience with clients incarcerated in SCORE.‘

On the generous assumption this rumor, from a source totally opposed to use of SCORE, is completely correct, we can still ask if the lack of connection to services is a SCORE issue, or just yet another colossal failure of the local responses to homelessness and addiction. At this point, there is a large amount of evidence to support the latter, and nothing to support the former.

“Khandelwal argued it would be more cost effective to pay businesses for stolen merchandise.”

It would be even more cost-effective for the city if Khandelwal would pay businesses for stolen merchandise.

@2 "On the generous assumption this rumor, from a source totally opposed to use of SCORE"

The public defenders at least represent defendants incarcerated at SCORE so they presumably know what services or connections to services are available. The City (a source totally in favor of use of SCORE) has no obvious basis of knowledge. It's possible or even likely they're just accepting the word of representatives of this private jail, who have a vested interest in securing ever more contracts.

"It would be even more cost-effective for the city if Khandelwal would pay businesses for stolen merchandise."

Oh shit for a second I forgot you weren't a serious person, thanks for snapping me back to reality.

“The public defenders…”

The only one of whom quoted is Khandelwal, the aforementioned source totally opposed to use of SCORE. So that entire section of the story depends entirely upon that sole source.

“In contrast to the DPD's experience, McNeil said the mayor's office has been responsive to PDA’s concerns.”

So maybe, the problem actually described here is that Khandelwal refused to make any good-faith effort, due to her pre-existing, implacable opposition to use of SCORE?

“…thanks for snapping me back to reality.”

Yes, the reality of you always resorting to ad hominem attacks anyway, after every other attempt you make at argument swiftly and hilariously fails you. Glad to see you’re going directly there, instead; it saves everyone time.

@4 Khandelwal is the head of the department she speaks for all of them

@5: Yes, because no worker has ever disagreed with any official statement the boss had loudly proclaimed as true.

Do your parents know you're here?

@6 ya I bet all the line public defenders love the conditions at the local for-profit jail and their boss is muzzling them for unknowable, purely political reasons. You are very smart

Oh wait nevermind the public defender union also opposed contracting with SCORE

https://publicola.com/2023/03/07/amid-lawsuit-over-jail-conditions-county-moves-forward-with-controversial-inmate-transfer-plan/

Guess you're not that smart after all

@8: Since it's obvious many low-level offenders do not "access services for homelessness or addiction" now, the assertion that they won't do so at SCORE either seems like a very hollow objection. Again, based upon this story, there's no reason to believe those two issues are connected at all, let alone hold up progress on getting criminals off the streets before they commit more crimes.

(Should you ever actually hold a real job, you might want to be aware it is possible for a worker to disagree with both the boss and the union.)

@9 right all the people who willingly chose a low paid and generally disrespected career path because they believe so strongly in providing a defense to poor people probably disagree with their boss and their union on the subject of housing their clients at a problematic jail. Makes sense