>Also, with regards to the deterrence point. I don’t really think criminals are doing illegal things because they’re like “the DA won’t prosecute he’s too weak on crime.” I’ve seen you discussing your issues with Bragg below, how does that tie into your view on this issue?

Messaging/signaling is a big deal. And I suspect that's at the root of more crimes than we give it credit for.

For example, leave some property unattended, and it'll signal that no one cares about it, and it will increase the likelihood of it being stolen/defaced etc. The other way around works too: if it's credible that someone cares about it, it can be a deterrent for crimes.

One concrete example was in the use of street lighting at night: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/nyc-used-street-lighting-to-cut-crime-without-more-arrests/

>“What I take from that is that it’s not just about lighting. There is some kind of demonstration and signaling effect here that you’re letting people know this is an area that’s being watched. This is an area that’s being cared for,” he said. Additionally, they monitored communities around the public housing developments and did not find that crime was being displaced to other locations.

Another concrete example is how the increased enforcement of misdemeanors (in the 90s) led to the decrease of felonies: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9061/w9061.pdf

With Bragg specifically, both of the issues I had/have with him entails messaging:

• In his first day of office he decided to wholesale downgrade armed robberies to misdemeanors. That was quite a slap in the face given the rise in gun violence that was going on around that time.
• In the Trump's case, he didn't even try to present the case to a grand jury and had the lead prosecutors resigning in protest. That's another slap in the face given that such outcome would've only be expected from a republican DA, and that it helps perpetuate the lack of accountability of the powerful.