 I think there are two big problems with prosecutors. One is they have almost no metrics on what they do. Maybe they do a sort of, you know, convictions per arrest, sort of the number they might campaign on. We don't really have any good insight about sort of what they're doing, why they're doing it, what drives it. So we're kind of voting based on sort of those one or two shocking cases. The other problem is that we elect DAs at the county level. It seems like this boring bureaucratic issue, but I think it has huge implications for how they behave because they're elected by the county, but they tend to operate, at least in urban counties, they tend to operate in the city, but the suburban voters tend to have disproportionate power. So you get this disconnect between cost and benefit. The prosecutors are spawning you the suburbs, enforcing law in the city. The suburbanites feel the benefits of reduced crime. Their commute feels safer. They feel happier getting things at lunch when they're going to see a show on Friday night. They don't feel scared. But it's not their brother, not their uncle, not their son, not their nephew who's going to prison unnecessarily being charged, unnecessarily being hassled unnecessarily. And so it encourages the DAs, and to a lesser extent the police who I think respond to the gentrified parts of the city rather than the higher crime parts of the city, it incentivizes them to focus much more on reducing crime and ignoring the costs of that enforcement. And sort of becomes their urban suburban splits. That's where race begins to play an incredibly toxic role. Sort of these white wealthier suburbs who choose the prosecutor, who then gets to enforce law and sort of pour more minority parts of the city. And I think that racial gap creates an even broader empathy gap that leads to some really serious problems.