Yup, I expected this.

Despite the tremendous rise in crime, the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed District Attorney Larry Krasner for re-election on Monday, May 9, 2021, a day in which the City of Brotherly Love was reporting 183 homicides thus far that year, 46 more than the same day the previous year, and 1.4186 per day. The Editorial Board wrote at the time:

The Democratic primary for Philadelphia district attorney has been drawing national attention, and understandably so. Aside from its colorful main characters — an incumbent DA who’s a national icon in progressive circles, opposed by a former assistant DA whom he’d fired when he took the job — the race hinges on a powerful question: Is dramatic criminal-justice reform possible in a time of rising gun violence and murder rates?

No one can dispute the numbers: Philadelphia experienced the most homicides in 2020 in nearly 60 years, and 2021 is off to an even worse start. The first-term incumbent district attorney, Larry Krasner, notes that this spike parallels a national trend, and he insists it isn’t connected to his programs aimed at curbing mass incarceration. But his opponent, Carlos Vega, argues that Krasner’s approach to prosecuting gun offenses is too lenient — citing recent reports on low conviction rates for such crimes — and that the “bad guys” all know it. . . . .

A complex, relatively recent spike in gun violence isn’t a reason to return to the mass incarceration regime of yesteryear, but a challenge to do better.

It’s all that you need to know: the #woke^[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading Editorial Board supported Mr Krasner’s very effective efforts at reducing “mass incarceration.” That criminals who could have been in jail but were not behind bars because of Mr Krasner’s policies, such as Hasan Elliot, were killing people just didn’t seem to matter to the Board.

Now, three current mayoral candidates, three Democratic mayoral candidates, have said they will find ways to circumvent the George Soros-sponsored District Attorney, to get those accused of violent crimes prosecuted by the United States Attorney, under federal law, rather than state law under Let ’em Loose Larry.

As we previously reported, the Editorial Board are perfectly aware that Philadelphians don’t feel safe in the city, and that the “percentage of Black and Hispanic Philadelphians who feel unsafe in their neighborhood is double the percentage of white Philadelphians.” Of course, teh Board blamed that not on crime, not on criminals, but the internal segregation in the city.

And now it seems that the Board are aghast that some politicians, some Democratic politicians want to cut the District Attorney out of the loop:

Circumventing DA Larry Krasner is not the answer to city’s gun woes | Editorial

A consistent theme that emerges in conversations on public safety in Philadelphia is, some say, how difficult Krasner makes it for others to work with him. It is critical they keep trying.

by The Editorial Board | Thursday, February 16, 2023 | 8:07 AM EST

Gun violence is one of the defining challenges facing Philadelphia, and whoever wants to be the next mayor must have answers on how to ensure public safety. But while there is room for debate on solutions, securing long-term results will require a coordinated effort across city government — no matter how difficult some agencies are to work with.

LOL! I find it interesting that the Editorial Board have restricted this to paid subscribers only.^[2]Though the Inquirer does have a paywall, non-subscribers can usually get around five ‘free’ articles a month, with the website tracking IP addresses to determine that. You could, and I … Continue reading Given that the Lenfest Institute, the non-profit organization which owns the Inquirer sent out yet another begging letter to subscribers on February 12^th, you’d think that they’d want a wider audience for their editorial, if they thought it would express a popular sentiment.

That includes the office of District Attorney Larry Krasner, who — to the consternation of his critics — has questioned the efficacy of pursuing charges against those who are carrying guns without a permit.

The Inquirer very much supports increased gun control, yet it does not seem as though the Board are questioning Mr Krasner’s reluctance to enforce an existing gun control law. How does that work?

Skipping down a few paragraphs, in which the Board note that yes, under Mr Krasner, there has been a significant decrease in convictions under the Violation of the Uniform Firearm Act, and that many people, including Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw believe has led to increased crime. The Board itself recognized that “convictions on gun cases have mostly declined since Krasner took office in 2018.”

The District Attorney has blamed the decrease in convictions on poorer cases brought by the Philadelphia Police Department, but that doesn’t explain why there were more convictions previously on cases brought by that same Department.

The embattled district attorney, who was impeached last year by the Republican-controlled state House, told The Inquirer that any effort to circumvent his authority was an attempt to undo the will of the voters and compared it to the politically motivated impeachment.

“Some of the candidates for mayor are not in touch with Philadelphians,” he said. “This office has never enjoyed more love and support than it enjoys right now.”

That may be the case, but what love and support Krasner has is a result of his focus on restorative justice, not his often abrasive and condescending professional demeanor.

And there it is: the Board love Mr Krasner’s ideas about “restorative justice.” We recently noted the concept of restorative justice as stated by the University of Wisconsin Law School:

Restorative justice is a set of principles and practices that create a different approach to dealing with crime and its impacts. Restorative justice practices work to address the dehumanization frequently experienced by people in the traditional criminal justice system. Instead of viewing a criminal act as simply a violation of a rule or statute, restorative justice sees this action as a violation of people and relationships.

Restorative justice seeks to examine the harmful impact of a crime and then determines what can be done to repair that harm while holding the person who caused it accountable for his or her actions. Accountability for the offender means accepting responsibility and acting to repair the harm done. Outcomes seek to both repair the harm and address the reasons for the offense, while reducing the likelihood of re-offense. Rather than focusing on the punishment meted out, restorative justice measures results by how successfully the harm is repaired.

What, exactly, would be ‘repairing the harm’ to a shooting victim? How would one ‘repair the harm’ to someone who has been murdered? Given that the Board have recognized that a very significant number of Philadelphians, 70% of them, see public safety as the most important issue facing the city, and that two-thirds of residents have heard gunshots in the city over the past year, it would seem to me that the harm is citywide, as the people who haven’t been robbed or carjacked or stabbed or shot yet are still fearful that they could be the next victims. How can a criminal malefactor repair that harm?

There’s a lot more, with the Board noting that Mr Krasner doesn’t play well with others, and is zealous in his anti-police crusade, something with which the Board are wholeheartedly in support. They concluded:

Ultimately, for the sake of Philadelphia, it is far better for whoever is elected mayor to find a way to partner with the district attorney.

After all, it isn’t politicians who bear the brunt of leadership failures on public safety, it is vulnerable Philadelphians who must live with the everyday reality of gun violence outside their doors.

You know, that’s true enough: the city shouldn’t have to go around one of its elected officials, and the city shouldn’t have to bring in the Feds because local law enforcement won’t do its job. But Mr Krasner won his elections, in landslides, because actual law enforcement is not what a whole lot of city voters want. They want things to be nice, and they’d like things to be peaceful, but they also want things to be nice and peaceful without the police around, as though that were actually possible.