Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Get Me to the Gray, presented by COJA Services Inc., is a podcast about the conversations we’re told we shouldn’t have. Hosted by journalist and author Paula Lehman-Ewing, the show brings people with fundamentally different ways of seeing the world into honest dialogue—where we name what divides us and keep talking anyway.COJA Services Inc. works with mission-driven organizations and brands that are clear on their values but struggle to translate that clarity into public-facing language. We help teams align internal narratives, reduce confusion before it becomes mistrust, and translate complexity into public understanding without relying on scripts, rhetoric, or generic AI language that strips voice and judgment.
If you're in the greater Denver metro area, register for our LIVE events at tinyurl.com/COJAEvents
Cristine DeBerry
Paula (Host): [00:00:00] My guest today is Christine Soto DeBerry. She's the founder and executive director of the Prosecutor's Alliance. She spent a decade as the Chief of Staff to San Francisco District Attorney's George Gascon and then Chesa Boudin. She previously served as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's Def, deputy Chief of Staff, and started her career as a public defender in Los Angeles County.
Welcome, Cristine.
Cristine DeBerry: Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Paula (Host): Yeah. So I wanted to talk today about kind of this flashpoint that I don't think gets talked a lot about in reform movements, which is when progressive ideas and policy meet the institutions that need to implement them. So I think that's particularly interesting in progressive prosecutors' offices where you have, you do have that standing old guard.
So tell me from your. Experience working with das, what that flashpoint looks like when they bring those big campaign promises into the office?
Cristine DeBerry: I [00:01:00] think, um, like any, any newly elected coming into an existing organization, if you have a interest in making drastic change, there's a challenge around that.
People that have been doing their job and have a career they've been vested in for, you know. 5, 10, 20 years, it's hard to, um, embrace a new approach. There's a real need for us to be, um, mindful of that and to bring people into that dialogue, right? And so I think a challenge that has existed in prosecution for a long time is.
Like most areas of the law, law school does not really prepare you for the actual job. It prepares you for the subject matter, but not the ins and outs of what it's gonna look like to actually practice either in a law firm or in a prosecutor's office or a public defender's office. And I think there's so much about that work that isn't part of the training, um, particularly the [00:02:00] philosophy around public safety crime.
Reduction, how we respond to harm. None of that is a subject we're offered in law school. And so when you get into an office that those ideas are filled in by the way the work is done in an office. And the way that the community you surround yourself with responds to those questions. And for prosecutors that very often is police, um, as their primary partner in that work.
And so it doesn't provide much opportunity to think about. Are there alternatives to what I'm doing? Are there different strategies around this work? And without that kind of input and encouragement in an office or in a profession, it is really easy to believe there's only one way to do the work and that risk is a dangerous thing.
And so I think when new electeds come in, I've worked for several, um, who think maybe we could do something different. How we go about that question I think is really. Um, as [00:03:00] important as what we think the end goal is.
Paula (Host): So if you have any progressive, it could be Chesa, it could be Larry Kramer, anyone that really spent most of their time on the other side of the courts of the courtroom.
Cristine DeBerry: Mm-hmm.
Paula (Host): And then they come in and then, you know, add to that. The lack of training, as you said
Cristine DeBerry: mm-hmm.
Paula (Host): In law school, when you get, you sort of, you, you learn mostly on the job as you would for most jobs. And so do you think that translates to an experience and do you think that that's a valid concern or do you think that, that maybe there is a learning curve no matter who takes the office?
Cristine DeBerry: Certainly, I think there's a learning curve for everybody. I mean, even if you've, even if you have spent your entire career in an office and then become the elected, there's a learning curve because it's a very different role than being a line prosecutor. So no doubt whoever comes in has a learning curve.
Um, I think the benefit of [00:04:00] Chase's experience is that like myself, he's seen multiple sides of the issue. And that's always a benefit to the work, in my opinion. I think we always do better work if we have closer to a 360 view of how it is showing up in the world. And so, you know, you've practiced in this space.
I mean, when you do defense work, you hear directly from your clients and you don't hear from victims. When you do prosecution work, you hear directly from victims and you don't hear from defendants. And so it creates this, um, schism of, of access to information and knowledge and impacts. If you haven't crossed over between the two sides of that, uh, courtroom, and I think that that's a real limiter.
I think defense attorneys could benefit from understanding the impacts on victims better as well. I think both sides really need that opportunity to see the problem more holistically. Um, so I think that was a real strength Chaa brought to the work and it is a really hard thing if you haven't done defense work to appreciate.
Um, what that might look like [00:05:00] unless perhaps your own personal lived experience. There were people in your family that were impacted as, um, being suspected or being defendants. In cases, you may have more of a sensibility around that, but if you don't have that personal exposure or that professional exposure, it can be challenging to view the problem through more than one lens, which is, I have a victim that has been harmed here.
That's significant. That shouldn't be minimized. But there's also another human being in the conversation and many human beings around them. Um, that I think reformers and people that are looking at these questions different are asking us to grapple with, and that's very new to prosecution. That's nothing that anybody's exposed to in either defense or prosecution work.
And I think we would benefit from, frankly. Um, one of the things we try to do at Prosecutor's Alliance now is we take prosecutors on prison visits. As part of trying to help break up this, we can only see one human being in this conversation. Um, and whether somebody's done something horrific and that we [00:06:00] don't agree with and we think needs a response, doesn't take away the fact that they're still a human being and they're somebody that's a member of our community, and also likely somebody that's been on their own growth trajectory since being in court and being sentenced.
And so when we take prosecutors on those visits, a thing we hear all the time is, I've been practicing for 20 years. I've never been to a prison. Because you know, to our earlier question, it's no part of the legal education. It's no part of the requirements when you join an office. It's no part of the training requirements in an administration.
And so you can practice an entire career and never haven't seen the place you're sentencing people to and never having spoken to somebody in a meaningful way that's experienced your intervention. And that to me feels like a huge blind spot in the work. It's nobody's fault. It's no individual prosecutor's fault, but it's a fault of how we are supporting and training people into this work and then giving this immense power to take away people's freedom without a full understanding of the impacts of that on that individual, on their family, [00:07:00] on the community, and whether it's actually effective to the goal they're trying to reach.
So I think there's a lot more we need to be doing to help, uh, increase that visibility and understanding.
Paula (Host): Yeah, and I, and I love that the idea that you can't charge someone without understanding the impact that it's gonna have on their life and, and kind of exposing them to more than just time on a sentencing board.
Um, you know, one of the things you mentioned was that's sort of out of box perspective. I mean. Covering the San Francisco DA's race as a criminal justice reporter. That's what drew me to the story was that not only did Chaa have that view from the other side of the courtroom, but he was directly impacted as well.
His, he had a parent incarcerated at the time, I think. Um, and so I can see how that be, can be translated to the public. I guess my question is the criticism. Doesn't seem to be [00:08:00] coming from the public at least immediately, right? Because they voted whoever it is in the, that backlash comes from the people who are in, who are already in like the old guard that have not had the exposure that you're talking about, um, that have had that one way of doing their job.
And so I guess how important is that buy-in? Like do you just need a leader that comes in and is like, I'm disrupting. You know, like it or go work somewhere else, or do you need that internal buy-in?
Cristine DeBerry: Um, I don't know that there's one right answer to that. I think from where the position I sit in the work, I think you can get much further if you can gain buy-in from the existing staff.
I think, um, taking people on that journey with you as to why there are other ways to think about the problems and the solutions, um, is where long term change happens. I think you can certainly come into an office and [00:09:00] some electeds have and remove large swaths of the office and replace them with other individuals, um, that feel more aligned for them.
I think we,
I just, I feel like there's an opportunity to work with more people, um, than has sometimes been the case. And so, um, most people that go into this work. Go into it. 'cause they wanna help people. They wanna help people, right? They made a choice not to go to a law firm, not to do some kind of commercial law because they wanted to be a public service.
And so I think that there's a, that's a really important orientation that people bring and helping them understand that they don't have to choose between victims and the people that hurt them. That they can help both people in the same moment. You don't have to abandon a victim in helping a person that harmed them.
Right? We can help both people in meaningful ways. It's a much better outcome, which is the reason people took [00:10:00] that job, is like, I want people to be safe in their communities. Great. Let's talk about how we actually get to that safety and how we do it in a way that's meaningful and sustainable and isn't about this kind of always using coercive, um, force and power on people.
What are the more reparative ways we can build community and safety and so. I believe people are open to that conversation. It's just not a light switch. You can flip on and off for people, right? It's like we've all come to where we are and how we think about responses to harm over time. Um, and our culture is one, you know, the way we are exposed to parenting, the way we're exposed to responding to people not following the rules has been a certain way for centuries.
And so it's, it's an unraveling that we need to do about how, how we think about correction for people. Um, and so I, you know, my hope is that we can do that with people that are in offices. I don't think that's a hundred percent of people, but I think it's a broader swath than maybe some would expect. [00:11:00] Um, and I think that that's the way we get to sort of kind of long term change in the profession is by engaging everybody in that conversation.
I mean, that's kind of the work we try to do is I think. One of the challenges I saw in the role I was in in San Francisco is like, I got a chance to be in those kinds of conversations. I got to go to conferences. I got to be in interesting calls with people really grappling with these questions. But most of the people in the office did not because they had an obligation to be in court every day and there were like sinking underneath the weight of the cases they had.
And it's a little unfair of us to say like, Hey, we need to think differently about this when we haven't given people a chance to really. Grapple with what that is. And so the work we're doing is trying to make that more accessible. Like, how can we bring you that research without you having your office pay for you to fly across the country for a conference?
We can bring it to you virtually. We can give you opportunities, we can help build a community around you. People that are asking questions about what actually works and what's our highest and best [00:12:00] calling in this work.
Paula (Host): Mm-hmm. So, so take me to, to San Francisco again, because I think it's interesting, you know.
You had George Gascon who came in and made big changes as a progressive prosecutor so well that he won in la um, and then you had chaser come in. So you have an office that Yes, they've been, they, they don't have time to go to conferences. They're, they're doing cases, they're doing real time work. Um, but they were pretty, like, they were getting with the program, I would assume if they, if they were there for all four years of George Gascon.
So, um. Was it a different leadership style when Chaa came in, or did you see it was, they were still growing, but they, it's, it's a process that's gonna take a long time because of these real world logistics of their job.
Cristine DeBerry: I would say most people in the office said, had come with us, um, over George's nine [00:13:00] years there.
Um, we really, you know, took the time to try and put that kind of training in place and support people in that work. Um, you know, nothing's perfect, but I think there was a lot of intention to really try to bring everybody into that conversation and help us build different responses. And I think we got a relatively positive response from people.
Um, there were still plenty of people that were skeptical and, you know, didn't necessarily embrace George or our approach, but I would say by and large, as an office, people were, um, willing to do that. I think the things that changed is we had an election and many people in the, you know, when you're, when there's gonna be a new boss in your office, pretty much everybody's paying attention to what they're saying and how they're talking about the, and most people in the office had chosen an, an opponent of Chase's as their preferred person.
It was somebody they knew. It was somebody that had worked in the office and they got very invested in that outcome. Um, and I think, um, we're concerned about [00:14:00] him, I would say in large part because he came out of the public defender's office in the same jurisdiction, which created a lot of people, had litigated cases against him.
Everybody had litigated cases against the office and had an opinion about the office. Um, and I think that that was unique. Um, it wasn't that he was in private practice or came from another jurisdiction. I think it was a very close, um, adversarial relationship with him. And so that created a lot of concern for people.
And then I think that, you know, chase had a different approach when he came into office than George, and he terminated a bunch of people. And I think that that's solidified for people, that this is somebody that isn't going to work with us. He's going. To try and replace us and bring in public defenders and, you know, change this office into something we don't support.
So I think it was all of those things sort of came together for, and, and helped people form a belief that working with Chesa wasn't gonna be viable for them.
Paula (Host): Yeah, I mean, we have [00:15:00] examples in Cook County and, and in Philadelphia and so I, but I do see.
That
Cristine DeBerry: neither were public defenders.
I think there's a distinction there. I think it's different when you're like, everyday adversary is one office, right? By and large. I think that that is unique.
Paula (Host): Okay. So from when they're coming from specifically not from a criminal defense practice, but from a public. Defense practice,
Cristine DeBerry: I think in this case that was unique. Yep. And I think people had been in court with him and, and his peers and his, it's a very aggressive public defender's office. It's not one that, you know, kind of goes with the flow.
They, they litigate everything. They're very aggressive in their approach and as is their prerogative and their call and their, you know, their obligation. But I think when you are, when you are litigating against that every single day, it, it is really hard to then shift that and be like, oh, or this person could be on my team.
Right. It's, [00:16:00] it's a, it's asking a lot of people psychologically I think.
Paula (Host): Yeah. No, I agree. And, and it, it's interesting. So there are two points I wanna make from this. 'cause I think, I think it's a really interesting tension. So you mentioned the pe the way that people in the, in the office voted and what, like in preparation for this, I was thinking, you know, you have backlash against you.
Progressive prosecutors in general and then, uh, from the public, but you also have that internal backlash. And what I was going to kind of examine was how do you get that internal buy-in and still like reassure the voters that voted you in for your disruptive ideas that you're going to deliver on those promises.
But thinking of the staff as voters themselves is interesting because it's, it's. Now you, now you really have to pull yourself into different directions. You've, you've made these promises and then you get into the office and those weren't the people [00:17:00] that voted for the promises, but those are the people that you need to work with you to, to carry those policies out.
And so what I'm wondering is when you have, when you're trying to make everyone happy, does that equivocation. End up with policies that make people feel unsafe, that, that make internal relationships difficult. And then ultimately, as we saw, lead to a recall lead to a, a complete failure in, in public trust.
And so that's kind of where I thought we would talk about that. 'cause I, I do think that's very, I think it's an impossible test to just try to make everyone happy.
Cristine DeBerry: For sure it is. I, I don't think even all of those things that I said, I don't think any of those are why there was a recall against Chesa. Um, I think the recall against Chesa is, was a culmination of increasing crime that was punctuated by, uh, the pandemic [00:18:00] and, um, opposition from police union and their engagement of community and people within the office to suggest that the root of that problem was chasa when it's obviously a much more.
Complex answer to that problem. So I think that's actually what resulted in the recall. I don't think the internal strife is what led to a recall. Um, I think that that could have calmed down with time. Um, but it was sort of a perfect storm of like he came in as a change candidate and then we're in the pandemic.
I mean, I was in the office at the time. It was very challenging 'cause we had to try and get everybody out of the building. We had to try and get courts onto Zoom and do remote hearings. We had people still having to come in. Chesa and I were buying lunch for everybody that was, had to come in out of our personal funds because we felt worried for everyone.
So it was just, it was a really, it was an unusual moment and we saw it around the country where, you know, we saw this pushback against, um, elected prosecutors that, in my opinion was ill [00:19:00] placed. Um, and we're seeing now as we're coming out, you know, separation from the pandemic, we're now experiencing like lowest crime rates in recorded history.
With no real change in policy in almost all of these places. And so I think that that really is more the place to analyze the recall, but I think there are still interesting questions and for us to learn, um, about what it looks like to be a, a change agent in a, in an institution and a place that hasn't had much of that.
Paula (Host): Yeah, I, I do think there's something to be said about how, whether or not it was, um. Whether or not you had, uh, the pandemic or not. And this crime status, you know, they always go up and down. Um, I think there's something you said about kind of through what, what we saw in California. Was not just kind of the mistrust that you saw all around the country with prosecutors, but also rejection of very [00:20:00] reform measures on the California ballot.
Like a, a place that's known between LA and San Francisco as being very progressive. And so you see like a rejection of the, um, uh, abolish the 13th Amendment. I forgot what it was, this, this time around, but it's failed twice in places where it's succeeded in the deep South. And so you see what, I think, I saw a times article that was something, you know, is this a rebuttal of reform policies?
And it, it doesn't seem like that to me. It seems like it's a, it's a rebuttal to leadership that's unable to implement those policies in a way that makes people feel safe.
Cristine DeBerry: Um, I think that all of the ballot measures and the recalls are tied to the same thing of that we had crime increases around the pandemic. That, and we've had an increase in unhoused people and people [00:21:00] struggling with drug addiction and mental health issues that are very visible in communities. In communities that haven't traditionally had to experience that.
And it created a lot of. Um, destabilizing feelings for people. People felt very afraid because they would see somebody on the street that they felt like, I don't know what the interaction with this person is gonna be like. Like they are screaming and yelling at, at the air. And I don't know how to navigate that.
And I don't think I should have to, as a private citizen who pays taxes, like my dollars should go to solving that problem and it's not being solved. It's getting worse. And I think that resulted in rejection of ballot measures, rejection of candidates. And it was not, it was about a reflection of the experience people were having around exacerbating income inequality and visible repercussions of that.
Paula (Host): So then let's, let's just keep it in-house then. Like you worked for Chesa and you worked for Gascon. Gascon also faced a recall, but he survived it. So what was different in terms of, 'cause it's the same environment, same [00:22:00] political environment, same fears, same election. So is it just the person.
Cristine DeBerry: No. So in San Francisco we have ranked choice voting and Chesa's win was by, um, a smaller margin.
He didn't have to win 50% plus one to win that race, right? And so his first place votes were I think somewhere around 20 or 30% of the electorate. And so then when you come back a year later and say, we don't like this person, let's recall them, the base he's starting with is much smaller of that support.
He actually gained support through the recall. He got more votes to stay in office during the recall than he got to enter office A, you know, a year or two earlier. So I, I think that it's much more about the mechanics of politics. San Francisco's a much smaller county than Los Angeles. It's a much easier to buy a recall election and put out the information you need to persuade voters, which they did with a few very wealthy donors.
In Los Angeles, that's a much bigger endeavor, right? Get, gathering the signatures to get on the ballot is very expensive. [00:23:00] Communicating with a county that's larger than all but six states is a very challenging thing. And so they tried two recalls against George, which failed. Um, but they beat battered him up enough that by the time he came up for reelection, he was not a viable candidate.
'cause they had spent the entire four years. Attacking him and assaulting him and putting out the kinds of recall campaign messages that really damaged him and made it hard for him to fight back against.
Paula (Host): Do you think that if George had been in San Francisco, he would've had the same outcome as Chaa?
Cristine DeBerry: George would've had the benefit of having served two prior terms, two and a half terms, and having been the police chief in that city. All things that he, I think could have used to his benefit. So I think he would've prevailed in that. But I don't, I believe he also would've come under attack. I don't think he would've been exempt from that.
And I think he would've experienced a lot of the same blow back that Chase had received because of the, what was happening in the city at that time. [00:24:00]
Paula (Host): And so if we're looking at that as a case study, if we're looking at, uh, at if California, and at least in the very beginning, the implementations that you mentioned of George.
And the trainings and the buy-in and chaa and the disruption and the trying to get buy-in by bringing people in. Um, you know, I sort of see that pattern repeating nationally, which is, I'm from New York. I, we all followed the Ani election and we saw the same sort of, I'm coming in here to change things and campaign promises about, um, about making meaningful change and really turning things around.
And granted it has not been a long time for him to be in office, but most of his appointees are de blassio reboots, essentially. And so you see that sort of immediate, what I would call equivocation to internal critics to be like, okay, well if you think I'm [00:25:00] inexperienced, I'll bring people in that you're comfortable with.
But in doing that, I don't feel like anything actually. Can can change that way. It, it feels like, it feels like when you start kind of, I, I need to please internal and I need to please external, all the voters see is uncertainty.
Cristine DeBerry: Government doesn't tend to turn on a dime. It's not a private company where you can just say like, we're changing our whole business model. It looks different. We're shutting everything else down and starting over, right?
You have millions of people depending on, on that institution and that infrastructure, and so it moves a little more slowly than maybe voters would hope for, or campaign suggest it will go. Um, and I think some of that is appropriate and some of it is frustrating, right? There are some areas where we're like, okay, everybody agrees this should change then I get that.
But I think on almost every issue, there are multiple points of view, right? And, and, and people don't agree. [00:26:00] And when you're in unelected role, whether they voted for you or not, you're, you are there to represent them as well. And so I think that, that, that is important to be cognizant of as a representative, right?
You're not. You're not a king or a dictator. You're there to like voice your community's concerns and act on their will. And so it can be hard when you have a divided community that has like two very different points of view about how you should approach policing or prosecution or childcare or whatever the case may be.
Um, do you have some prerogative for winning an election? Yes. Do you wanna abuse it and like walk away from what people want? I think we're seeing a huge example of that at the federal level right now. No. No. We don't really want you to do that. So, you know, I, I. Well, it can be frustrating when, you know, you win an election, your candidate wins and you want them to run full steam ahead at your priorities.
I hope we can be mindful that like it's still a democratic process and we have to make space to bring more people along in it. [00:27:00]
Paula (Host): So I guess where I, I'd be interested in learning is, is out, out of all the examples we've kind of been talking about, is there a national. Guideline that allows prosecutor, progressive prosecutors to approach the job in a way that secures that buy-in, but still implements the policies in a way where they pan out as they should when you're pitching them as campaign promises.
'cause a lot of the stuff, like you said, crime crimes come down because of, of, of things like rejection, of cash bail, and, um. And lower sentencing and, um, diversion programs. And so, so how do we, how do we come, how do you suggest progressive prosecution, um, creates real change without equivocation, but with the force of the office behind them?
Cristine DeBerry: Well,
Paula (Host): [00:28:00] no matter where they are,
Cristine DeBerry: yeah. I mean, I don't, you know, there's no magic wand here, but I think the more successful approaches are to have. Very clear commitments to what you wanna do, preferably that are backed by research that you can point to that says, we've studied cash bail. It shows us that dangerous people get released when they can buy their way out and not dangerous.
People get stuck in that churn. Okay, that seems like a good policy. It's backed by research. Um, so finding whatever those like key priorities are for a new elected that they feel, um, confident in their effectiveness. Messaging on those and working deeply within the office and in the community to help people understand why it's actually going to increase safety.
Um, many people do that. I think the real challenge to that is that there is a concerted built-in opposition with police unions, um, to all of these policies. And like the biggest voices we heard against bail reform across the [00:29:00] country were police unions, right? And so we just had to be cognizant of that political reality.
The best politician elected to a prosecutor's office with a beautiful platform backed by research that gets buy-in from their office is still going to get pushback. And so, um, I think for us as community members now, not speaking as somebody in this work, we have to be really, um, critical consumers of what we're hearing in the media and who's telling us that story and what their motivations might be for that.
Um, and then I think it's about educating the media as well, right. Most people in media are not criminal justice experts. They're journalists, right? And they cover a whole range of topics across a wide spectrum. They don't have the ability in their role to dive deep into every single question they're asked to report on.
And so there's a need to really engage with that profession as well to help them think more critically about how they report, and not just like if it bleeds, it leads, but like what are the deeper ways we need to have the conversation around this? Um. [00:30:00] And one of the things we've been doing more recently, I mentioned we do prison visits for prosecutors.
We've started taking journalists on those visits for the same reason because we feel like so many people are asked to report on a crime or, uh, somebody being released or whatever the case may be, but they don't have any other touch points with that system or the people in it. And so we are trying to make sure they have a little bit more well-rounded understanding of, of what, what's at stake when they're reporting one way on a, on an issue.
Paula (Host): Okay. Um, you know, I guess my last question would be, I think blues unions are going to be a barrier in any point in time, um, when it comes to reforms, especially in the, in the space of justice and criminal justice, um, system. You know, if that's going to be an unmovable barrier, what are some of the low hanging.
Movable barriers that we can, that we can [00:31:00] take down right now to help kind of smooth the path to progress?
Cristine DeBerry: Well, I think if you look at polling around the country, essentially everybody supports giving people treatment when they're struggling with either mental health or drug use, right? So it feels to me that that's the place we can all, we all agree on that.
Pretty much across the spectrum. Um, and so starting with issues like that, um, make a lot of sense to me. I think you're right. We're not gonna get around police opposition. And I think most people that come into the role saying like, we need to do this different, are willing to look at police critically if they injure somebody in the community or if they commit fraud, and that is deeply angering to that constituency.
I don't think they should back away from that. I think that you just have to kind of take your lumps on that and know that you're standing on the right position of that that authority needs accountability too, maybe even more so. Um, and so I think the places that somebody coming into office can really [00:32:00] build is thinking around those kinds of responses to harm and getting more community buy-in around those.
Um, allowing people to participate in the system of justice more is a really helpful thing. I mean, in San Francisco we had neighborhood courts where we had. Community members would resolve low level cases and very successfully and, um, very enthusiastically. And I think that that kind of ability to engage with the problem solving that needs to happen and taking it out of the courtroom so much, I think is very effective.
Um, and I also think, um, community violence interruption programs are another really key infrastructure we should be building so that we're not entirely reliant. On police for every problem. It's unfair to them, and it doesn't solve the problem that community is calling and asking for resolution around, right?
So having these kind of alternate responders on the low level stuff, having community violence interrupters on the more serious stuff and try starting to build out the infrastructure. I think a real challenge has been for people are coming and saying it needs to be different. [00:33:00] The budget dollars are already allocated to the traditional responses.
So when you say we need more drug treatment, where does that money come from? People aren't yet willing to shrink police budgets to do it. And so making sure that cities and counties are really investing in that infrastructure ahead of, say, of de destabilizing police or other things. Right? And so building out that infrastructure now is the way that we have actual, meaningful, scalable alternatives to some of the things we know don't work.
Paula (Host): Yeah. Well, and that speaks also to the, you know, outsider coming in. You do need to have an awareness of where things are right now so you can make promises for change that is actually possible. You can't say, well, we're gonna have more people go into treatment beds when you don't have the beds. So, um, you know, it, it's interesting, I think the, the gray, if you will, here isn't in between like how a prosecutor comes into the office, whether they bring in the buy-in or they get the buy-in, but it's [00:34:00] also.
Perhaps more importantly, how the public absorbs what change looks, what change looks like, that it, it, first of all, it's not gonna be that flip a switch change right away, and that it's going to require patience. And at the end of that patient, it might not look how you thought it would look, but change is still happening in a way that's meaningful.
Cristine DeBerry: Yeah, I mean our criminal justice system looks dramatically different than it did 50 years ago. Is it where we want it to be? No, but we are on a journey here and I think that's important for us to remember and we're on this journey because courageous people have said, this doesn't work. This is oppressive and ineffective.
And so we just need to remember that and you know, try to keep bringing the question to people and say like, is our best work in the United States of America in 2026 to put most people in cages when they. Break the law or do we have better options available to us and do we, [00:35:00] does that match our values better?
And I think most people will say yes to that. And so the question is how do we implement that in a way that people still feel safe around that implementation? And it keeps STA stepping us towards a more humane approach to harm and violence.
Paula (Host): Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to Yeah.
Walk me through all that. I, I love, especially the work that you're doing. You know, I'm, I, I think that the way that we get to non-binary, binary thinking is to talking not politically but humanely. And I think the idea of bringing. Both journalists and politicians into jails and prisons and getting that human perspective is, I, I, I think that's very important.
So if people, um, wanna learn more about you or Prosecutors Alliance, where would you like them to go?
Cristine DeBerry: Yeah, you can go to our website, www.prosecutorsalliance.org. Um, if you like, what we're up to. Become a member, it's free. Um, you'll get updates on our trainings and opportunities [00:36:00] we have to visit a prison and a lot of our other work.
If you're interested in more political work, we have a C four and that's www.prosecutorsallianceaction.org.
Paula (Host): Okay, great. Well, thank you so much for joining me, Cristine.
Cristine DeBerry: Yeah, my pleasure.