Welcome to News in Context – I’m Gina Baleria.
In this episode, we talk with former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin, founding executive director of the newly created Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley School of Law.
We discuss Boudin’s new role at UC Berkeley, and his plans for advancing victim's rights, true justice for all, and criminal justice reform by seeking evidence-based solutions and researching what can work.
We also explore how we could truly reform the U.S. criminal justice system to make it work for everyone - and how to navigate resistance to reform efforts.
This is Part 1 of my interview with Chesa Boudin. You can hear Part 2 next week.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to News In Context, I’mGina Baleria.
In this episodewe talk with former San Francisco D.A.
Chesa Boudin founding executive directorof the newly created
Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law.
We discussed Bourdain's new roleat UC Berkeley and his plans for advancing
(00:21):
victims rights, true justicefor all, and criminal justice reform
by seeking evidence based solutionsand researching what can work.
We also explore how we could truly reformthe U.S.
criminal justice systemto make it work for everyone
and how to navigate resistance to reformefforts.
(00:42):
This is part one of my interviewwith Chase of the Line.
You can hear part two next week.
So the reason I wanted
to have you on heretoday was really to kind of
(01:03):
I mean, one, I'mso excited to hear about the center
because I think watching everythingthat's gone down in San Francisco with you
and across the country,it's time to really sort of dive
in and provide context around these issuesor more context, additional context
around these issuesas well as like what keeps derailing
(01:23):
efforts to reform criminal justice
or really get at some of the perniciousand persistent issues in the system.
So I guess whatI would I'd like to start with is to have
you talk a little bitabout first about the center
and what you would like to focus ondoing this work.
Well, thanks for having me on the showand giving me an opportunity to talk about
(01:44):
my work and issuesthat have so impacted my life
and the lives of countlessmillions of Americans.
You know, I grew upvisiting my own parents in prison,
and maybe we'll have a chance to talkabout that later on in the recording.
But it's meant for methat every every day of my life
I'm thinking about and aware ofand cherishing my own freedom,
(02:05):
as well as impacted by the shortcomings
of the way that this country approachapproaches crime and punishment.
I think we can all agree that regardlessof our politics or our priorities,
that we all deserveto live in safe communities
and that our country should continueto strive to live up to the
really lofty goalsthat many of our founding fathers
(02:26):
set forth in terms of equal justiceunder law, in terms of having
an independent, neutral judiciarythat meets out justice,
in terms of having a system of justice,we can call just.
And we've got a lot of work to doif we're going to achieve those goals.
I think our our current approach isfailing to failing to rehabilitate people.
It's failing to keep communities safeor to meaningfully
(02:46):
support victimswho've been harmed by crime and violence.
And it's also bankruptingstate and local governments, starving
them of the resources that are necessaryto actually prevent crime,
to build the kind of vibrant communitiesthat I want to raise my son in.
And so this
job for me is a really excitingnext step in a career, a lifelong journey
(03:07):
that's been dedicated to finding waysto decrease reliance on incarceration
as a response to social problems, waysto expand
resources that can actually help peoplewho've been harmed, heal
and break the cycle of recidivism,of arrest and release and arrest.
That is so destructive to familiesand to communities and to safety.
How does engaging in this work in a placelike UC Berkeley differ from doing it
(03:30):
in a government setting, localor regional government law
schools are kind of unique in thatthey're at a kind of
the intersectionof scholarship and practice.
And the work I'm going to be doing atthe center is really at that intersection.
It's going to drawon my practical experience,
both as a public defenderand as the elected district
attorney of San Francisco,as well as my lived experience
(03:53):
visiting my biological parentsin prison for a combined 62 years.
You know, so much of lawmaking and legal
teaching is often divorcedfrom real world experience.
And I want to bringall of the lived experience,
all of the practical experiencethat I had in my lifetime.
I want bring that lens to the researchwe do to the teaching.
(04:15):
And what we're going to do at the centeris three things.
We're going to research, we're goingto educate, and we're going to advocate.
And I'm happy to talk moreabout what that looks like.
But but at core, we're going to dig in onwhat sorts of policies can make us safer,
what are more
effective ways to invest tax dollarsthat are being dedicated to public safety?
What are ways that we can expand accessto justice and enhance
(04:37):
the integrity of law enforcementso that people trust the system
when they need to ask for helpor have a loved one being processed
through the system.
We're going to educate the next generation
of lawyers, of of public defenders,of prosecutors, of judges.
And we're going to advocate for policiesthat make our communities safer,
more just places to live.
I want to get into all of that,but I want to start I want to dial back
(05:01):
just a second.
And everyone says they want safecommunities.
No matter whatside of the political spectrum they're on.
Everyone saysthey want justice, things like that.
So I was wondering if you could definewhat is a safe community mean to you
or what does the safe communitylook like to you?
That's a great question.
And I think that really at the heartof a lot of the debates we have locally
and nationally is this question of safetyfor who and what is safe.
(05:23):
You know, for me,I think in an ideal world,
we live in a societywhere people don't have to have fear that
they would be personally harmed physicallyor that their property would be harmed.
You know, I'm raising a two year oldand one of the golden rules
and one of the many parenting booksthat I read that is encouraging,
you know, unstructuredfree play in some ways has applicability
(05:45):
to answering your question.And the rule is basically,
if it doesn't
harm people or property,then it's probably okay.
And so I want to live in a societywhere what we think about a safety is
we don't need to be in fearthat our persons or property
are going to be harmed or taken from usor those of our loved ones.
And I think we have a long wayto go to get there when it comes
(06:06):
to public safety in big citiesacross the country and beyond.
But I also think we need
to ask an important question,which is who safety.
And oftenthe kind of things that make the news.
You know, for example, we saw this in SanFrancisco recently where
a wealthy tech executivewas tragically stabbed to death.
And it was international news.
(06:27):
It was every major paper in the countryand around the world was covering it.
It was endless TV and radio and analysis.
He was one of more than a dozen peoplewho'd been killed
by that point in the year.
And none of the other peoplewho were killed
got anywhere near that level of attention.
And so this is not in any way to minimizethe horror in the loss to his family
(06:48):
or of his life.
It's simply to point outthat when we talk about safety,
we really have very unequal allocationsof resources, of prioritization.
I mean, to take another extremelook at the way that so many people
minimize and denigratethe value of physical safety to immigrants
or to to women
or to people who are poor or unhoused.
(07:11):
And I think ideally we live in a communitywhere everybody is safe,
whether they live in a mansionor whether they live in a tent,
whether they are touristsvisiting our city
or whether they arepeople who were born and raised here.
You know, we want to have safetyand justice for all.
I think that's sort of the promise of ourdemocracy and of our system of laws.
(07:31):
And we're falling really short of thatwhen it comes to safety for
so many different groups, social groups,people who have different
gender identities, peoplewho are themselves incarcerated.
Oftenpeople just don't care about their safety.
But we know that rape and violenceagainst incarcerated people
is a very, very serious problem,pervasive problem,
(07:51):
and one that affects everybody'ssafety ultimately.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
And then the other thingI'd like to define
before we move on is that term justice.
What does justice mean to you when you'resaying that's what you want to pursue?
I think it's a system of laws.
And, you know, we have I'm a lawyer.I went to law school.
I come from many generations of lawyersand legal practitioners, judges.
And I think the rule of law is a delicateand fragile thing.
(08:14):
And if we start having two systems,you know, one for the rich and powerful,
one for the police
and one for everybody else, I think we doreal damage to the rule of law.
I think we undermine the notionof justice.
So, you know,there are countless policies and practices
that I could give you examples of thatare blatantly discriminatory.
You know, and I think when wewhen we see that, when we see
(08:36):
police getting away with murderor when we see
corrupt politiciansgetting away with embezzlement or,
you know, any number of other thingsthat we know are sadly
commonplace in this country in the city,you know, I think that does real damage
to the rule of law, and it underminesthe sense of justice at a national level.
We're kind of all all reelingfrom revelations about corruption
(08:57):
at the Supreme Court and JusticeThomas going on trips that are worth
many tens of thousands of dollarswith billionaire Republican donors,
with people with cases pendingbefore his court and not disclosing those.
And, you know, those are examplesof things that really undermine
public trust in the legal system andthe judiciary and our sense of justice.
(09:18):
Yeah, I agree.
And when it's mentioned, it's always like,oh, you're being partizan.
And it's like, no,we really want to get at this issue
and fix things and solve it and make surethere is justice for all, as you say.
So in that sense,why do you think and again,
I know the center is going to be doinga lot of this work
and a lot of the research and tryingto pull data and evidence together.
But at this moment,
as you begin your foray into the center,why do you think these issues persist?
(09:41):
I mean, you've been a practitioner,you've you've been inside the system.
You'veyou've obviously paid tons of attention
and you've been thoughtful about it.
What's going on in thatwe have these persistent issues
that every timesomeone like you comes in to maybe
look at things a little differentlyin Alameda County or across the country,
that there's sort of a real strongpushback against them.
(10:02):
I'd love to get your your thoughtsstanding at this moment.
Well, change is hard and we can all agreethat our justice system is falling short,
that our public safety investmentsare falling short of what we deserve,
what we want for our communities.
And yet it can be really difficultto agree on how to effect that change
and what it should look like.
And, you know, that's particularly true.
(10:23):
I think it's true across the boardas to when it comes to climate change.
It's true when it comesto, you know, any number of issues.
You might look at public transit,housing, education.
But it's particularly true when you'redealing with something that at its core,
you know, is really scary,you know, public safety, crime,
anybody who has been a victim of crime,anybody who is concerned
(10:45):
about being a victim of crime,has a certain level of fear.
And fear can sometimes make us
act in ways that are irrational, thatcan make us react rather than respond.
And it can also lead to what we callfear mongering.
And I think what we're seeing, again,across the country in every jurisdiction
(11:06):
where whether it's a district attorneyor whether it's a mayor,
whether it's a board of supervisors,a police commission that's saying, hey,
we can do better, we need more metrics,we need more accountability,
let's look at data.
What we're seeing is police unions, oftencorrectional officer unions,
sometimes local media, sometimesother elected officials responding
(11:28):
in ways that are really based on fear,not on data.
We had an example of thatjust this past week in San Francisco,
where a member of our board of supervisorswho is responsible
for the Tenderloin District,a very challenging district to govern
where there's lots of openair drug markets and drug overdoses,
and also our highest concentrationof families with school age children.
(11:51):
And the mayor had announcedthat she was ordering the police to start
arresting drug usersfor the first time in well over a decade
at a time when we don't actuallyhave adequate services
for people who want to get soberand when the mayor had just closed a safe
consumption site that was preventingoverdoses from becoming fatal.
And so the supervisor askedif there was data supporting this decision
(12:13):
to start arresting drug users
and instead of responding with data,if there was any,
the mayor played a race card and said
she was tired of white peopleasking those questions.
And, you know,you say, look, race is certainly relevant
in the criminal justice system.
We know it plays a role in the outcomes.
And yet to suggest that data is thereforeirrelevant or that white people
(12:35):
in elected office can't ask questionsabout policy related to their district
is really destructive to any kindof a rational policymaking process.
And so I sell that as an example of whywe have challenges
implementing good policy,
because there are peoplewho are determined to defend the status
quo, the war on drugs, for example,
without regard to data,
(12:56):
without regard to best practicesor evidence based practices,
because it's in their interests.
And I think that's certainly truefor police unions, for many elected mayors
and for a lot of the peoplewho are bankrolling the kinds of campaigns
that we see attacking peoplewho are simply trying to do things
better than they've been done before,and that term in their interest.
(13:17):
I always marvel at thatbecause it feels like it would be
in all of our interests to have sort ofvibrant communities across the board.
And I know that sometimes there is also
sort of the neighborhoodlike I want it taken care of now.
And so I can see,
you know, maybe the mayor trying torespond to, let's get something done now.
Well, now I can arrest people.
That's the only thing I havethat the only tool I have
(13:39):
rather than a long term goalwhich isn't as visible to someone
who's living there and seeing a problemor wanting a problem address.
I'll just push back a little bit.
I mean, look, it
certainly I mean, of course I agree thatthere are different lenses of analysis,
there's different time frames, and oftenthere's not a clear or easy answer.
We don't, for example,have a magic bullet to solve homelessness.
(13:59):
We don't have a magic bulletto solve mental illness.
Those are problems that we can address.
We probably can't ever in our lifetimes,entirely solve them.
And so, yeah, it's sometimes,
you know, a gray area where you say, well,we could try this or we could try that.
Arresting people who are addicted todrugs is not a gray area.
(14:20):
That's an areawhere we have decades worth of it.
And I'm not suggesting,by the way, that it's okay
or we should simply throw our hands upand do nothing about open air drug use.
I am saying using the police as a
frontline response to a public healthcrisis has been tried
in cities across the world for decadesand we know what the results are.
(14:40):
The results are abysmal,they're inhumane, they're expensive,
and they distract policefrom doing the critical work
that they're uniquely suited to do,responding to violent crime in progress.
So from my perspective, these are choices.
These are choices in the short, mediumand long term about where to invest money.
And there's been a
very intentional decision in San Franciscoand other cities across the country
(15:01):
not to invest in drug treatment,not to invest in
housing for people who are unhoused,not to have adequate shelter
beds or mental health treatment beds.
Those are things that,yes, can't happen overnight.
But you know what?
You can't have enough policeto arrest every drug user
in the Tenderloin overnight either.
That is also a long term investment.
It's one that our mayor has saidshe's willing to make.
(15:22):
Meanwhile, she's not willing to investin the treatment.
Right.
And this is something
that I was calling for back in 2019when I was on the campaign trail.
I saw it day in, day outas a public defender before I ran for D.A.
You're listening to News In Context, I’mGina Baleria.
We are talking with formerSan Francisco D.A.
Chesa Boudin,founding executive director of the newly
(15:43):
created Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law,
our jail in San Francisco,like so many jails across this country,
has tragically become the
number oneprovider of mental health services.
Let me just say a piece about whythat's tragic,
because it's not just SanFrancisco to L.A.
it's its big cities across the country.
(16:03):
It's tragic because it meanswe are waiting until someone commits
a crime before we intervene in a waythat gets them help.
That means we're waiting for themto be a victim of crime.
We're allowing people to be victimizedby folks who desperately need services,
but we're not offering
or making those services accessibleuntil they're in a jail cell.
The other reason it's tragicis because we know
(16:25):
that jails are the worst placeto give people mental health services.
People are not inclined to engage
or to respond favorably to medicationor to treatment when they're in a cage.
Yeah, that's a total stress.
And clearly your messageresonated with a lot a lot of us.
I mean, I you know, as a journalist,that message resonated.
It resonated when we elected youin San Francisco, it resonated in Alameda.
(16:49):
That message resonates and people dowant to see these things come to fruition.
So I was listening to aI believe was a forum episode
and they were talking about safedrug use sites and the veto for
at the state level.
And there was a woman
on the panel from Canadaand she was listening to everyone else
who's from the United States talk about,well, we need data, we need this, we need.
(17:09):
And she's and she laughedand she said, got Americans.
There is data.
There's data from across the world. Why?
She's like, that's very clear.
Basically making exact same pointyou made that that the data does exist
and it does clearly show that safedrug use sites
work for in this caseand that there are options.
Let's turn back to the centerand talk a little bit about how,
(17:33):
you know, you're going to educate,you're going to advocate,
you're going to research,and those things are hugely important.
How are you going to directthe messaging to really help
turn the tide on some of
the public perceptionthat drives the pushback
in a way that might that might movethe needle on this?
Well, first of all, you know, as you say,
(17:53):
we have lots of data and sometimeswhat resonates more with people
is what they see in their Twitter feedor what's coming up in Google News.
And there's not always a correlation.
So for example, during my administration,overall reported crime
was down by 20% and that was truefor violent and non violent crimes.
We actually saw
(18:14):
and, you know,just looking at the numbers here,
but we saw in the two and a half yearsI was in office compared to the two
and a half years priorto when I was in office,
we saw more than 30,000 fewer reported
crimes, and that's according to the SanFrancisco Police Department.
And yet many residents felt less safe.
Why is that? One reason forthat was the pandemic.
In a dramatic changein how we live our lives.
(18:35):
Another was probablya really significant increase
in headlines focusing on crime.
And I think it's critical that we notjust be safe, but that we also feel safe.
And so that's where the communicationangle comes.
And I think it's where, frankly,local media and national
media has a role to play.
And the way that crime gets covered,how much it gets covered,
(18:56):
how much particular elected officialsare being
named in stories,all of that comes into play.
I believe.
And there's also a
role, I think, for a centerlike the one that I lead to play in that.
How do you see the center playing a roleif we're doing deep number crunching,
for example, if we're doing an analysisof the success of a new program
(19:20):
just to pick one,which is the first kind of policy
I implemented when I was districtattorney, which was primary caregiver
diversion.
So the year before I took office,
our state legislature passeda law called Primary Caregiver Diversion.
Our governor signed it into law.
And as district attorney,my first policy in San Francisco
as a result was the first in the stateto actually implement this new law.
(19:42):
And it's a law that says fundamentally,we recognize that sometimes
it's better for everybody.
If parents who've been arrested for lowlevel crimes are at home
taking care of their kids than if they'rein jail racking up criminal convictions.
And so we're going to createopportunities, diversion opportunities
for people to take parenting classes
(20:02):
and engage with other kinds of courtsupervised programing.
And if they're successful,we're going to dismiss the case.
If they're not successful,criminal case is still pending,
but we want to create these off ramps forpeople who are playing this critical role
of being caregiversand hopefully prevent kids
from ending up in foster care, hopefullybreak this intergenerational cycle.
(20:23):
And so, you know, weimplemented that policy in San Francisco.
It's now been more than three yearssince the law took effect.
And as far as I'm aware, there'sbeen no studies of its effectiveness.
So let's say that my center
is able to gather datafrom all the counties across the state.
Have they implemented it?How many people have gone there?
What was the success rate
(20:43):
now, a few years later?
How many of those people were re-arrested,if any?
We could do that data analysis.
We could publish a report on it.
And that's something I'd love to do.
It's also going
to be important to communicateand to tell the stories behind the data,
because we all know and you know thisfrom your work as a journalist,
that as as significant as data is,as necessary as it is to good policymaking
(21:06):
stories,
humaninterest is also unbelievably compelling.
And if we have one without the other,we're either going to people's
eyes are going to glaze over,
they're going to be suspiciousof the source of the data,
or they're going to see some other reportthat crunches numbers differently
and they're going to throw up their handsand say, well,
I don't know, maybe Trumpdid win the election. I mean. Right.
That's theand this is Steve Bannon's one of Trump's
(21:30):
strategist, one time strategist.
Whole approach.
I mean, he said flood the zone with it.
And they have done that very effectivelyto the point that data alone
doesn't get us where it should.
You need human stories.
You need anecdotes
that illustrate the data in a way that ismemorable to people and compelling.
So I think we have to do both things.
(21:51):
I think we have to do thatboth as researchers and also as advocates.
Yeah, I totally agree.
We are seeing a lot of stories
without data in the misinformationand disinformation campaigns
that are effectivebecause we do respond to stories.
Even I always use with my students.
I teach all sorts to know
state and I you know, the Stalin quote,you know, one death is a tragedy.
A thousand deaths or a million deathsis a statistic, right?
(22:13):
Because it's so difficult that I can tella story about that one person,
but the rest of it just feels too large.
And I think people yeah, like you said,
people's eyes glaze overor they don't know how to read it.
And they question it.
And so, so coming up with storiesand that's why I honestly started
this podcast, is to dive deeperinto some of these big issues
to provide contextand to tell the story of the issue.
(22:36):
So I do appreciate that that's goingto be part of your approach at the center.
And I'm wonderinghow you found your way to the center
between the recallwhich that moment to hear.
Can you talk to me a little bit about howyou found your way to this center that
that seems to be very suitedfor, for what you can do.
And B, I was excited to deliveron the promise I made to voters.
(22:58):
I knewit was going to take more than a year,
but I was within a yearI was facing two separate recall attempts,
and I certainly wasn'tcounting on the COVID pandemic,
but I was counting on itbeing a long term job
at least four years, the four yearsI was elected to.
So it was frustrating, of course,not to get to finish my term.
I also went through a loton a personal level in the final year
(23:19):
in office, not just fighting the recall,losing my job to which I've been elected,
but also the birth of my first son,
but also my my father got out of prisonafter 40 years.
Shortly before the recall.
My mother lost a seven year battle withcancer just a month before the recall.
And so we were dealing with
a tremendous amount on the home front,you know, as well as a very demanding job.
(23:42):
And and so when the recall was over,
I really wanted to focus on familyand take time to plan my mom's memorial
to support my wife in her careerthe way she'd supported mine,
and to really get time with my sonin a way that had been challenging
When I was running the officeand fighting the recall for the first
nine months of his life.
And so that was the priority.
But I also started having conversations
(24:03):
with people all across the spectrumin law firms and at universities
and in other government agencies,you know, in a whole wide array in media,
you know, the the area of work that seemedmost exciting to me was was ultimately
this was something
that could allow me to continueto do public facing advocacy work
while also taking the time to really digin on the data and the science.
(24:24):
Because one of my frustrationsduring my time in office
was that politicskept getting in the way of good policy.
And I really like thinkingabout the issues on a deep level.
I like studying the data.
I like looking at points of comparison.
In other jurisdictionswhere they've implemented policies, seeing
what's worked, what hasn't worked, why,and then trying to,
you know, spread the love when we havea good policy, a model policy.
(24:47):
And that was something that was justreally challenging to do, partly the COVID
pandemic, partly internal sabotagein the office, partly,
you know, the petty politics of city halland so many other issues. But
and then, you know,
the other thing that's so amazingabout being in a place like Berkeley law,
the premier public law schoolin the country is I'm surrounded,
(25:08):
you know, on the one hand
by professors who are doing cutting edgeresearch and publishing.
I'm really thinking outside the boxabout justice and safety
and all of the related issuesthat come up with rule of law
and also with an amazing creative,high energy group of students who,
you know, are our futureleaders, elected officials and immigration
(25:29):
advocates and tenants rights lawyersand so much more,
and to get to work with and help shapethe curriculum for those students
to teach them and to learn from themis just a really amazing opportunity.
So, you know, after a lot of conversationwith a lot of people,
I saw that this centerwas being created at Berkeley Law.
I knew a lot of facultythere, and I was excited to apply
(25:50):
and thrilled to get thejob. Yeah, that's awesome.
Thank you to my
guest, Chase Boudin,founding executive director of the newly
created Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law.
You can follow the new center on Instagramor Twitter at Berkeley Law School.
(26:10):
JAY-Z This has been partone of my interview with Chase Boudin.
In part two, we'll explore how our focus
on punishmentcan actually undermine public safety.
Sometimes we successfully punish people,but we actually undermine safety
in the process.
All of that made me kind of start studyingfrom an early age
(26:31):
the uniquely punitive approachto to justice in this country.
And it also made me
learn and studywhat's become called mass incarceration.
I learned for example,that the United States leads the world
in locking peopleup, that we have more people per capita.
(26:51):
And as a person and in raw numbers,incarcerated on any given day
than any other country in the world.
And that's that's not somethingwe should be proud of. Right.
That's not you know, we're not saferbecause of it.
We're not happier because of it.
We're not more prosperous because of it.
We'll also discusshow the criminal justice system
reflects society in wayswe need to address.
(27:12):
One of the things I learned
both personally visiting jails and prisonsmy whole life and
being a public defender and,you know, the practical experience
of being in the courtroom,
both as a public defenderin running the district attorney's office
is that for far too long,the criminal legal system
has been a dumping groundfor other social problems.
And, you know, that's true
(27:33):
with regard to poverty, homelessness,addiction, all kinds of issues.
Right.
And we grapple with the emergenceof two systems of justice
and how that can impact young peopleas they go through life.
We want to make sure as a societythat people
are in an environmentwhere they have the right choices to make.
And all too often,you know, people who look like me
(27:53):
or people who go to private,you know, elite private schools,
you know,
they're making choices in an environmentthat's like a bowling alley with bumpers,
you know, where you can bounceoff the walls a little bit and it's safe
and you get second and thirdand fourth chances.
And people like my friendLorenzo don't get those second chances.
It doesn't mean thatthey didn't make bad choices
(28:14):
or that there shouldn't be responsibilityand accountability when they do.
And so I think we need to look at like,yes, individual accountability and yes,
individual decisionmaking and yes, individual responsibility
and yes, structural changeto ensure that more young people
are in an environmentwhere they have good choices to make.
Join me next week.
The music in this episode
(28:40):
includes Spring Fling by Track Tribeand the Heist by Silent Partner.
In addition to hearing News In Context,every Friday at 8:30 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m.
on KSFP 102.5 in San Francisco.
You can hear it on Spotify,Stitcher, Apple Podcasts,
Iheartmedia Google Play, Google Podcasts,Pod Bean, YouTube and Pyrex.
(29:01):
We're also on Facebookand Twitter @newsincontextSF and
on Instagram @newsincontext.
And you can find links to all of thatat newsincontext.net.
I'm Gina Baleria, thank you for listening.
Welcome to News In Context, I’mGina Baleria.
In this episodewe talk with former San Francisco D.A.
Chesa Boudin founding executive directorof the newly created
Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law.
We discussed Bourdain's new roleat UC Berkeley and his plans for advancing
(00:21):
victims rights, true justicefor all, and criminal justice reform
by seeking evidence based solutionsand researching what can work.
We also explore how we could truly reformthe U.S.
criminal justice systemto make it work for everyone
and how to navigate resistance to reformefforts.
(00:42):
This is part one of my interviewwith Chase of the Line.
You can hear part two next week.
So the reason I wanted
to have you on heretoday was really to kind of
(01:03):
I mean, one, I'mso excited to hear about the center
because I think watching everythingthat's gone down in San Francisco with you
and across the country,it's time to really sort of dive
in and provide context around these issuesor more context, additional context
around these issuesas well as like what keeps derailing
(01:23):
efforts to reform criminal justice
or really get at some of the perniciousand persistent issues in the system.
So I guess whatI would I'd like to start with is to have
you talk a little bitabout first about the center
and what you would like to focus ondoing this work.
Well, thanks for having me on the showand giving me an opportunity to talk about
(01:44):
my work and issuesthat have so impacted my life
and the lives of countlessmillions of Americans.
You know, I grew upvisiting my own parents in prison,
and maybe we'll have a chance to talkabout that later on in the recording.
But it's meant for methat every every day of my life
I'm thinking about and aware ofand cherishing my own freedom,
(02:05):
as well as impacted by the shortcomings
of the way that this country approachapproaches crime and punishment.
I think we can all agree that regardlessof our politics or our priorities,
that we all deserveto live in safe communities
and that our country should continueto strive to live up to the
really lofty goalsthat many of our founding fathers
(02:26):
set forth in terms of equal justiceunder law, in terms of having
an independent, neutral judiciarythat meets out justice,
in terms of having a system of justice,we can call just.
And we've got a lot of work to doif we're going to achieve those goals.
I think our our current approach isfailing to failing to rehabilitate people.
It's failing to keep communities safeor to meaningfully
(02:46):
support victimswho've been harmed by crime and violence.
And it's also bankruptingstate and local governments, starving
them of the resources that are necessaryto actually prevent crime,
to build the kind of vibrant communitiesthat I want to raise my son in.
And so this
job for me is a really excitingnext step in a career, a lifelong journey
(03:07):
that's been dedicated to finding waysto decrease reliance on incarceration
as a response to social problems, waysto expand
resources that can actually help peoplewho've been harmed, heal
and break the cycle of recidivism,of arrest and release and arrest.
That is so destructive to familiesand to communities and to safety.
How does engaging in this work in a placelike UC Berkeley differ from doing it
(03:30):
in a government setting, localor regional government law
schools are kind of unique in thatthey're at a kind of
the intersectionof scholarship and practice.
And the work I'm going to be doing atthe center is really at that intersection.
It's going to drawon my practical experience,
both as a public defenderand as the elected district
attorney of San Francisco,as well as my lived experience
(03:53):
visiting my biological parentsin prison for a combined 62 years.
You know, so much of lawmaking and legal
teaching is often divorcedfrom real world experience.
And I want to bringall of the lived experience,
all of the practical experiencethat I had in my lifetime.
I want bring that lens to the researchwe do to the teaching.
(04:15):
And what we're going to do at the centeris three things.
We're going to research, we're goingto educate, and we're going to advocate.
And I'm happy to talk moreabout what that looks like.
But but at core, we're going to dig in onwhat sorts of policies can make us safer,
what are more
effective ways to invest tax dollarsthat are being dedicated to public safety?
What are ways that we can expand accessto justice and enhance
(04:37):
the integrity of law enforcementso that people trust the system
when they need to ask for helpor have a loved one being processed
through the system.
We're going to educate the next generation
of lawyers, of of public defenders,of prosecutors, of judges.
And we're going to advocate for policiesthat make our communities safer,
more just places to live.
I want to get into all of that,but I want to start I want to dial back
(05:01):
just a second.
And everyone says they want safecommunities.
No matter whatside of the political spectrum they're on.
Everyone saysthey want justice, things like that.
So I was wondering if you could definewhat is a safe community mean to you
or what does the safe communitylook like to you?
That's a great question.
And I think that really at the heartof a lot of the debates we have locally
and nationally is this question of safetyfor who and what is safe.
(05:23):
You know, for me,I think in an ideal world,
we live in a societywhere people don't have to have fear that
they would be personally harmed physicallyor that their property would be harmed.
You know, I'm raising a two year oldand one of the golden rules
and one of the many parenting booksthat I read that is encouraging,
you know, unstructuredfree play in some ways has applicability
(05:45):
to answering your question.And the rule is basically,
if it doesn't
harm people or property,then it's probably okay.
And so I want to live in a societywhere what we think about a safety is
we don't need to be in fearthat our persons or property
are going to be harmed or taken from usor those of our loved ones.
And I think we have a long wayto go to get there when it comes
(06:06):
to public safety in big citiesacross the country and beyond.
But I also think we need
to ask an important question,which is who safety.
And oftenthe kind of things that make the news.
You know, for example, we saw this in SanFrancisco recently where
a wealthy tech executivewas tragically stabbed to death.
And it was international news.
(06:27):
It was every major paper in the countryand around the world was covering it.
It was endless TV and radio and analysis.
He was one of more than a dozen peoplewho'd been killed
by that point in the year.
And none of the other peoplewho were killed
got anywhere near that level of attention.
And so this is not in any way to minimizethe horror in the loss to his family
(06:48):
or of his life.
It's simply to point outthat when we talk about safety,
we really have very unequal allocationsof resources, of prioritization.
I mean, to take another extremelook at the way that so many people
minimize and denigratethe value of physical safety to immigrants
or to to women
or to people who are poor or unhoused.
(07:11):
And I think ideally we live in a communitywhere everybody is safe,
whether they live in a mansionor whether they live in a tent,
whether they are touristsvisiting our city
or whether they arepeople who were born and raised here.
You know, we want to have safetyand justice for all.
I think that's sort of the promise of ourdemocracy and of our system of laws.
(07:31):
And we're falling really short of thatwhen it comes to safety for
so many different groups, social groups,people who have different
gender identities, peoplewho are themselves incarcerated.
Oftenpeople just don't care about their safety.
But we know that rape and violenceagainst incarcerated people
is a very, very serious problem,pervasive problem,
(07:51):
and one that affects everybody'ssafety ultimately.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
And then the other thingI'd like to define
before we move on is that term justice.
What does justice mean to you when you'resaying that's what you want to pursue?
I think it's a system of laws.
And, you know, we have I'm a lawyer.I went to law school.
I come from many generations of lawyersand legal practitioners, judges.
And I think the rule of law is a delicateand fragile thing.
(08:14):
And if we start having two systems,you know, one for the rich and powerful,
one for the police
and one for everybody else, I think we doreal damage to the rule of law.
I think we undermine the notionof justice.
So, you know,there are countless policies and practices
that I could give you examples of thatare blatantly discriminatory.
You know, and I think when wewhen we see that, when we see
(08:36):
police getting away with murderor when we see
corrupt politiciansgetting away with embezzlement or,
you know, any number of other thingsthat we know are sadly
commonplace in this country in the city,you know, I think that does real damage
to the rule of law, and it underminesthe sense of justice at a national level.
We're kind of all all reelingfrom revelations about corruption
(08:57):
at the Supreme Court and JusticeThomas going on trips that are worth
many tens of thousands of dollarswith billionaire Republican donors,
with people with cases pendingbefore his court and not disclosing those.
And, you know, those are examplesof things that really undermine
public trust in the legal system andthe judiciary and our sense of justice.
(09:18):
Yeah, I agree.
And when it's mentioned, it's always like,oh, you're being partizan.
And it's like, no,we really want to get at this issue
and fix things and solve it and make surethere is justice for all, as you say.
So in that sense,why do you think and again,
I know the center is going to be doinga lot of this work
and a lot of the research and tryingto pull data and evidence together.
But at this moment,
as you begin your foray into the center,why do you think these issues persist?
(09:41):
I mean, you've been a practitioner,you've you've been inside the system.
You'veyou've obviously paid tons of attention
and you've been thoughtful about it.
What's going on in thatwe have these persistent issues
that every timesomeone like you comes in to maybe
look at things a little differentlyin Alameda County or across the country,
that there's sort of a real strongpushback against them.
(10:02):
I'd love to get your your thoughtsstanding at this moment.
Well, change is hard and we can all agreethat our justice system is falling short,
that our public safety investmentsare falling short of what we deserve,
what we want for our communities.
And yet it can be really difficultto agree on how to effect that change
and what it should look like.
And, you know, that's particularly true.
(10:23):
I think it's true across the boardas to when it comes to climate change.
It's true when it comesto, you know, any number of issues.
You might look at public transit,housing, education.
But it's particularly true when you'redealing with something that at its core,
you know, is really scary,you know, public safety, crime,
anybody who has been a victim of crime,anybody who is concerned
(10:45):
about being a victim of crime,has a certain level of fear.
And fear can sometimes make us
act in ways that are irrational, thatcan make us react rather than respond.
And it can also lead to what we callfear mongering.
And I think what we're seeing, again,across the country in every jurisdiction
(11:06):
where whether it's a district attorneyor whether it's a mayor,
whether it's a board of supervisors,a police commission that's saying, hey,
we can do better, we need more metrics,we need more accountability,
let's look at data.
What we're seeing is police unions, oftencorrectional officer unions,
sometimes local media, sometimesother elected officials responding
(11:28):
in ways that are really based on fear,not on data.
We had an example of thatjust this past week in San Francisco,
where a member of our board of supervisorswho is responsible
for the Tenderloin District,a very challenging district to govern
where there's lots of openair drug markets and drug overdoses,
and also our highest concentrationof families with school age children.
(11:51):
And the mayor had announcedthat she was ordering the police to start
arresting drug usersfor the first time in well over a decade
at a time when we don't actuallyhave adequate services
for people who want to get soberand when the mayor had just closed a safe
consumption site that was preventingoverdoses from becoming fatal.
And so the supervisor askedif there was data supporting this decision
(12:13):
to start arresting drug users
and instead of responding with data,if there was any,
the mayor played a race card and said
she was tired of white peopleasking those questions.
And, you know,you say, look, race is certainly relevant
in the criminal justice system.
We know it plays a role in the outcomes.
And yet to suggest that data is thereforeirrelevant or that white people
(12:35):
in elected office can't ask questionsabout policy related to their district
is really destructive to any kindof a rational policymaking process.
And so I sell that as an example of whywe have challenges
implementing good policy,
because there are peoplewho are determined to defend the status
quo, the war on drugs, for example,
without regard to data,
(12:56):
without regard to best practicesor evidence based practices,
because it's in their interests.
And I think that's certainly truefor police unions, for many elected mayors
and for a lot of the peoplewho are bankrolling the kinds of campaigns
that we see attacking peoplewho are simply trying to do things
better than they've been done before,and that term in their interest.
(13:17):
I always marvel at thatbecause it feels like it would be
in all of our interests to have sort ofvibrant communities across the board.
And I know that sometimes there is also
sort of the neighborhoodlike I want it taken care of now.
And so I can see,
you know, maybe the mayor trying torespond to, let's get something done now.
Well, now I can arrest people.
That's the only thing I havethat the only tool I have
(13:39):
rather than a long term goalwhich isn't as visible to someone
who's living there and seeing a problemor wanting a problem address.
I'll just push back a little bit.
I mean, look, it
certainly I mean, of course I agree thatthere are different lenses of analysis,
there's different time frames, and oftenthere's not a clear or easy answer.
We don't, for example,have a magic bullet to solve homelessness.
(13:59):
We don't have a magic bulletto solve mental illness.
Those are problems that we can address.
We probably can't ever in our lifetimes,entirely solve them.
And so, yeah, it's sometimes,
you know, a gray area where you say, well,we could try this or we could try that.
Arresting people who are addicted todrugs is not a gray area.
(14:20):
That's an areawhere we have decades worth of it.
And I'm not suggesting,by the way, that it's okay
or we should simply throw our hands upand do nothing about open air drug use.
I am saying using the police as a
frontline response to a public healthcrisis has been tried
in cities across the world for decadesand we know what the results are.
(14:40):
The results are abysmal,they're inhumane, they're expensive,
and they distract policefrom doing the critical work
that they're uniquely suited to do,responding to violent crime in progress.
So from my perspective, these are choices.
These are choices in the short, mediumand long term about where to invest money.
And there's been a
very intentional decision in San Franciscoand other cities across the country
(15:01):
not to invest in drug treatment,not to invest in
housing for people who are unhoused,not to have adequate shelter
beds or mental health treatment beds.
Those are things that,yes, can't happen overnight.
But you know what?
You can't have enough policeto arrest every drug user
in the Tenderloin overnight either.
That is also a long term investment.
It's one that our mayor has saidshe's willing to make.
(15:22):
Meanwhile, she's not willing to investin the treatment.
Right.
And this is something
that I was calling for back in 2019when I was on the campaign trail.
I saw it day in, day outas a public defender before I ran for D.A.
You're listening to News In Context, I’mGina Baleria.
We are talking with formerSan Francisco D.A.
Chesa Boudin,founding executive director of the newly
(15:43):
created Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law,
our jail in San Francisco,like so many jails across this country,
has tragically become the
number oneprovider of mental health services.
Let me just say a piece about whythat's tragic,
because it's not just SanFrancisco to L.A.
it's its big cities across the country.
(16:03):
It's tragic because it meanswe are waiting until someone commits
a crime before we intervene in a waythat gets them help.
That means we're waiting for themto be a victim of crime.
We're allowing people to be victimizedby folks who desperately need services,
but we're not offering
or making those services accessibleuntil they're in a jail cell.
The other reason it's tragicis because we know
(16:25):
that jails are the worst placeto give people mental health services.
People are not inclined to engage
or to respond favorably to medicationor to treatment when they're in a cage.
Yeah, that's a total stress.
And clearly your messageresonated with a lot a lot of us.
I mean, I you know, as a journalist,that message resonated.
It resonated when we elected youin San Francisco, it resonated in Alameda.
(16:49):
That message resonates and people dowant to see these things come to fruition.
So I was listening to aI believe was a forum episode
and they were talking about safedrug use sites and the veto for
at the state level.
And there was a woman
on the panel from Canadaand she was listening to everyone else
who's from the United States talk about,well, we need data, we need this, we need.
(17:09):
And she's and she laughedand she said, got Americans.
There is data.
There's data from across the world. Why?
She's like, that's very clear.
Basically making exact same pointyou made that that the data does exist
and it does clearly show that safedrug use sites
work for in this caseand that there are options.
Let's turn back to the centerand talk a little bit about how,
(17:33):
you know, you're going to educate,you're going to advocate,
you're going to research,and those things are hugely important.
How are you going to directthe messaging to really help
turn the tide on some of
the public perceptionthat drives the pushback
in a way that might that might movethe needle on this?
Well, first of all, you know, as you say,
(17:53):
we have lots of data and sometimeswhat resonates more with people
is what they see in their Twitter feedor what's coming up in Google News.
And there's not always a correlation.
So for example, during my administration,overall reported crime
was down by 20% and that was truefor violent and non violent crimes.
We actually saw
(18:14):
and, you know,just looking at the numbers here,
but we saw in the two and a half yearsI was in office compared to the two
and a half years priorto when I was in office,
we saw more than 30,000 fewer reported
crimes, and that's according to the SanFrancisco Police Department.
And yet many residents felt less safe.
Why is that? One reason forthat was the pandemic.
In a dramatic changein how we live our lives.
(18:35):
Another was probablya really significant increase
in headlines focusing on crime.
And I think it's critical that we notjust be safe, but that we also feel safe.
And so that's where the communicationangle comes.
And I think it's where, frankly,local media and national
media has a role to play.
And the way that crime gets covered,how much it gets covered,
(18:56):
how much particular elected officialsare being
named in stories,all of that comes into play.
I believe.
And there's also a
role, I think, for a centerlike the one that I lead to play in that.
How do you see the center playing a roleif we're doing deep number crunching,
for example, if we're doing an analysisof the success of a new program
(19:20):
just to pick one,which is the first kind of policy
I implemented when I was districtattorney, which was primary caregiver
diversion.
So the year before I took office,
our state legislature passeda law called Primary Caregiver Diversion.
Our governor signed it into law.
And as district attorney,my first policy in San Francisco
as a result was the first in the stateto actually implement this new law.
(19:42):
And it's a law that says fundamentally,we recognize that sometimes
it's better for everybody.
If parents who've been arrested for lowlevel crimes are at home
taking care of their kids than if they'rein jail racking up criminal convictions.
And so we're going to createopportunities, diversion opportunities
for people to take parenting classes
(20:02):
and engage with other kinds of courtsupervised programing.
And if they're successful,we're going to dismiss the case.
If they're not successful,criminal case is still pending,
but we want to create these off ramps forpeople who are playing this critical role
of being caregiversand hopefully prevent kids
from ending up in foster care, hopefullybreak this intergenerational cycle.
(20:23):
And so, you know, weimplemented that policy in San Francisco.
It's now been more than three yearssince the law took effect.
And as far as I'm aware, there'sbeen no studies of its effectiveness.
So let's say that my center
is able to gather datafrom all the counties across the state.
Have they implemented it?How many people have gone there?
What was the success rate
(20:43):
now, a few years later?
How many of those people were re-arrested,if any?
We could do that data analysis.
We could publish a report on it.
And that's something I'd love to do.
It's also going
to be important to communicateand to tell the stories behind the data,
because we all know and you know thisfrom your work as a journalist,
that as as significant as data is,as necessary as it is to good policymaking
(21:06):
stories,
humaninterest is also unbelievably compelling.
And if we have one without the other,we're either going to people's
eyes are going to glaze over,
they're going to be suspiciousof the source of the data,
or they're going to see some other reportthat crunches numbers differently
and they're going to throw up their handsand say, well,
I don't know, maybe Trumpdid win the election. I mean. Right.
That's theand this is Steve Bannon's one of Trump's
(21:30):
strategist, one time strategist.
Whole approach.
I mean, he said flood the zone with it.
And they have done that very effectivelyto the point that data alone
doesn't get us where it should.
You need human stories.
You need anecdotes
that illustrate the data in a way that ismemorable to people and compelling.
So I think we have to do both things.
(21:51):
I think we have to do thatboth as researchers and also as advocates.
Yeah, I totally agree.
We are seeing a lot of stories
without data in the misinformationand disinformation campaigns
that are effectivebecause we do respond to stories.
Even I always use with my students.
I teach all sorts to know
state and I you know, the Stalin quote,you know, one death is a tragedy.
A thousand deaths or a million deathsis a statistic, right?
(22:13):
Because it's so difficult that I can tella story about that one person,
but the rest of it just feels too large.
And I think people yeah, like you said,
people's eyes glaze overor they don't know how to read it.
And they question it.
And so, so coming up with storiesand that's why I honestly started
this podcast, is to dive deeperinto some of these big issues
to provide contextand to tell the story of the issue.
(22:36):
So I do appreciate that that's goingto be part of your approach at the center.
And I'm wonderinghow you found your way to the center
between the recallwhich that moment to hear.
Can you talk to me a little bit about howyou found your way to this center that
that seems to be very suitedfor, for what you can do.
And B, I was excited to deliveron the promise I made to voters.
(22:58):
I knewit was going to take more than a year,
but I was within a yearI was facing two separate recall attempts,
and I certainly wasn'tcounting on the COVID pandemic,
but I was counting on itbeing a long term job
at least four years, the four yearsI was elected to.
So it was frustrating, of course,not to get to finish my term.
I also went through a loton a personal level in the final year
(23:19):
in office, not just fighting the recall,losing my job to which I've been elected,
but also the birth of my first son,
but also my my father got out of prisonafter 40 years.
Shortly before the recall.
My mother lost a seven year battle withcancer just a month before the recall.
And so we were dealing with
a tremendous amount on the home front,you know, as well as a very demanding job.
(23:42):
And and so when the recall was over,
I really wanted to focus on familyand take time to plan my mom's memorial
to support my wife in her careerthe way she'd supported mine,
and to really get time with my sonin a way that had been challenging
When I was running the officeand fighting the recall for the first
nine months of his life.
And so that was the priority.
But I also started having conversations
(24:03):
with people all across the spectrumin law firms and at universities
and in other government agencies,you know, in a whole wide array in media,
you know, the the area of work that seemedmost exciting to me was was ultimately
this was something
that could allow me to continueto do public facing advocacy work
while also taking the time to really digin on the data and the science.
(24:24):
Because one of my frustrationsduring my time in office
was that politicskept getting in the way of good policy.
And I really like thinkingabout the issues on a deep level.
I like studying the data.
I like looking at points of comparison.
In other jurisdictionswhere they've implemented policies, seeing
what's worked, what hasn't worked, why,and then trying to,
you know, spread the love when we havea good policy, a model policy.
(24:47):
And that was something that was justreally challenging to do, partly the COVID
pandemic, partly internal sabotagein the office, partly,
you know, the petty politics of city halland so many other issues. But
and then, you know,
the other thing that's so amazingabout being in a place like Berkeley law,
the premier public law schoolin the country is I'm surrounded,
(25:08):
you know, on the one hand
by professors who are doing cutting edgeresearch and publishing.
I'm really thinking outside the boxabout justice and safety
and all of the related issuesthat come up with rule of law
and also with an amazing creative,high energy group of students who,
you know, are our futureleaders, elected officials and immigration
(25:29):
advocates and tenants rights lawyersand so much more,
and to get to work with and help shapethe curriculum for those students
to teach them and to learn from themis just a really amazing opportunity.
So, you know, after a lot of conversationwith a lot of people,
I saw that this centerwas being created at Berkeley Law.
I knew a lot of facultythere, and I was excited to apply
(25:50):
and thrilled to get thejob. Yeah, that's awesome.
Thank you to my
guest, Chase Boudin,founding executive director of the newly
created Criminal Law and Justice Centerat UC Berkeley School of Law.
You can follow the new center on Instagramor Twitter at Berkeley Law School.
(26:10):
JAY-Z This has been partone of my interview with Chase Boudin.
In part two, we'll explore how our focus
on punishmentcan actually undermine public safety.
Sometimes we successfully punish people,but we actually undermine safety
in the process.
All of that made me kind of start studyingfrom an early age
(26:31):
the uniquely punitive approachto to justice in this country.
And it also made me
learn and studywhat's become called mass incarceration.
I learned for example,that the United States leads the world
in locking peopleup, that we have more people per capita.
(26:51):
And as a person and in raw numbers,incarcerated on any given day
than any other country in the world.
And that's that's not somethingwe should be proud of. Right.
That's not you know, we're not saferbecause of it.
We're not happier because of it.
We're not more prosperous because of it.
We'll also discusshow the criminal justice system
reflects society in wayswe need to address.
(27:12):
One of the things I learned
both personally visiting jails and prisonsmy whole life and
being a public defender and,you know, the practical experience
of being in the courtroom,
both as a public defenderin running the district attorney's office
is that for far too long,the criminal legal system
has been a dumping groundfor other social problems.
And, you know, that's true
(27:33):
with regard to poverty, homelessness,addiction, all kinds of issues.
Right.
And we grapple with the emergenceof two systems of justice
and how that can impact young peopleas they go through life.
We want to make sure as a societythat people
are in an environmentwhere they have the right choices to make.
And all too often,you know, people who look like me
(27:53):
or people who go to private,you know, elite private schools,
you know,
they're making choices in an environmentthat's like a bowling alley with bumpers,
you know, where you can bounceoff the walls a little bit and it's safe
and you get second and thirdand fourth chances.
And people like my friendLorenzo don't get those second chances.
It doesn't mean thatthey didn't make bad choices
(28:14):
or that there shouldn't be responsibilityand accountability when they do.
And so I think we need to look at like,yes, individual accountability and yes,
individual decisionmaking and yes, individual responsibility
and yes, structural changeto ensure that more young people
are in an environmentwhere they have good choices to make.
Join me next week.
The music in this episode
(28:40):
includes Spring Fling by Track Tribeand the Heist by Silent Partner.
In addition to hearing News In Context,every Friday at 8:30 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m.
on KSFP 102.5 in San Francisco.
You can hear it on Spotify,Stitcher, Apple Podcasts,
Iheartmedia Google Play, Google Podcasts,Pod Bean, YouTube and Pyrex.
(29:01):
We're also on Facebookand Twitter @newsincontextSF and
on Instagram @newsincontext.
And you can find links to all of thatat newsincontext.net.
I'm Gina Baleria, thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.