There has been a lot of notable discussions of (the potential demise of) the “progressive prosecutor movement” in the weeks since Election Day. In the last couple days I have seen these two notable lengthy pieces on topic providing quite distinct perspectives:
From Jim Gerrity at National Review, “Progressive Prosecutors’ Record of Unmitigated Failure.” A snippet:
Everyone will readily concede that prosecutorial decisions and philosophy aren’t the only factor in a jurisdiction’s crime rates. But it’s laughable to contend, as CAP and that University of Toronto study do, that they make no difference at all. And the citizenry in several of America’s big cities that are beset by terrible crime rates vehemently disagrees with the CAP perspective.
From John Pfaff at Prisons, Prosecutors, and the Politics of Punishment, “Reform Prosecutors Do Not Increase Crime: What the Data Tells Us.” A snippet:
The macro studies consistently find no evidence that electing a reform prosecutor leads to more violent crime (although studies are not always looking at the same violent offenses). One study finds a non-trivial increase in property crimes (of about 7%), but most other studies seem to find little to no impact on property crimes either. Papers are here.
The micro studies indicate that less aggressive responses tend to lead to lower rates of recidivism, and this happens both in studies that limit themselves to lower-level misdemeanors and those that include more-serious felonies. One paper has an intriguing result about the risks of non-incarceration, which may in some cases increase the risk of reoffending (due to the stigma of a record without the confinement of prison). It is worth noting, though, that there are very few micro studies out there yet. Papers are here.