Why Prosecutors’ Claims of ‘Following the Science’ Should Lead to Lower Crime Rates – A Critical Analysis

Many progressives often say, “Follow the science.” But sometimes, they are the ones who ignore real scientific evidence.

Take the example of progressive prosecutors like George Gascon in Los Angeles. They promote their lenient crime policies as being based on data and research. However, this is misleading. The studies they reference are often flawed, not peer-reviewed, or completely debunked.

Perhaps the clearest sign that these prosecutors are not truly following science is the significant rise in crime, particularly violent crime, in areas under their supervision. Despite this troubling trend, they and their supporters continue to invoke “data and science” as if they are valid justifications for their choices.

The real issue isn’t the use of data itself. District attorneys have relied on data for years to enhance public safety. However, progressive prosecutors have begun to misuse this data for their own agendas. Instead of focusing on community safety, they lean on data to minimize charges, promote lighter sentences, and seek lower bail amounts.

Some progressive initiatives even recommend that prosecutors ignore a defendant’s past when determining bail, arguing it could lead to racial disparity. This advice can undermine public safety and justice.

Two studies are often cited by these prosecutors as proof of their approach. Unfortunately, both studies have serious issues. For example, a Cook County study claimed that reducing bail didn’t compromise public safety. However, investigations revealed that the study inaccurately counted crime figures and misrepresented the impact of released defendants on community safety.

Another study examined first-time misdemeanor offenders, incorrectly suggesting that not prosecuting them would lead to fewer future offenses. This approach overlooks the fact that many non-first-time offenders could still pose a danger to the community.

These studies often cherry-pick data to support their claims while ignoring evidence that might contradict them. They focus on small, favorable subsets of information, rather than taking a comprehensive view of the issue.

In short, data and science play a crucial role in understanding crime and shaping policies. The problem lies in the selective and misleading ways some prosecutors present this information. Their repeated claims of using “data” and “science” ultimately serve as a distraction from the real effects of their policies on our communities.