Commentary: The Myth of ‘Data-Driven’ Prosecutors
If Prosecutors ‘Followed the Science’ as They Claim, We’d Have Less Crime, Not More
by Charles “Cully” Stimson of the The Heritage Foundation.
Progressive prosecutors often claim their policies are “data-driven” and “scientifically backed,” but this assertion falls apart under scrutiny. In cities led by these prosecutors, crime—especially violent crime—has risen, contradicting their claims of using science to enhance public safety. Instead of using data to protect communities, these prosecutors allegedly manipulate it to justify lenient sentencing, reduced bail, and decisions based on race and class rather than crime prevention.
The article critiques two studies frequently cited by progressive prosecutors, arguing that both contain serious methodological flaws. The first, a Cook County study on cash bail reform, allegedly underreported violent crimes committed by released defendants. The second, a Suffolk County study on misdemeanor prosecutions, only examined first-time offenders, excluding data on repeat offenders who are more likely to reoffend. These studies, the author contends, are misleading and serve as justification for policies that ultimately increase crime.
Stimson argues that invoking “data and science” without credible evidence is a deceptive tactic that misleads the public about the true impact of progressive prosecutorial policies.
