Unveiling the Truth: How ‘Following the Science’ Could Reduce Crime Rates Significantly

The phrase “follow the science” is often used by progressives, but sometimes those same individuals turn out to be the real science deniers.

Consider progressive prosecutors like George Gascon in Los Angeles. They present their lenient crime policies as being backed by data and scientific research.

However, this claim doesn’t hold up. The studies they refer to can be misleading, poorly conducted, or outright false. Furthermore, crime rates in areas where these prosecutors operate, particularly violent crimes, have increased significantly.

Despite this, they and their supporters continue to chant “data and science” repeatedly, almost like a mantra.

The real issue isn’t the use of data or research to inform policies; rather, it’s how it’s being applied. District attorneys have historically used data to enhance public safety, a primary goal of their role. But some progressive prosecutors seem to use data as a tool against opposing views, advocating for lower sentences and fewer charges. In certain cases, they even prioritize race and class over public safety.

Organizations like Fair and Just Prosecution encourage this approach. They suggest that prosecutors focus on metrics such as reducing incarceration and pretrial detention, tying these metrics to promotions.

They even recommend ignoring a defendant’s past arrests when considering bail, arguing that considering such history perpetuates racial disparities.

These lenient policies are often justified using two major studies, both of which have faced serious scrutiny.

The first study came from Cook County, Illinois. After the chief judge lowered bail amounts, many defendants were released before trial. A report claimed this did not threaten public safety. But the Chicago Tribune revealed numerous flaws in this assessment, including underreporting murders and limiting the definition of violent crime. Critics found that the number of new crimes by released defendants actually increased by significant margins.

The second study looked at misdemeanor defendants in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. It claimed that non-prosecuted individuals were less likely to face criminal complaints in the following years. However, it focused only on first-time offenders, not considering the larger group, which included repeat offenders. The study’s narrow scope and lack of transparency raised valid concerns about its findings.

The real issue isn’t data or science; it’s how rogue prosecutors wield these terms. By simply repeating “data” and “science,” they create a facade of credibility. Look closer, and it becomes clear that their claims often stand on shaky ground.

Originally published by MSN