Per Federal Data-Progressive Prosecutors Create More Crime

Highlights

Article

Are progressive prosecutors protecting or harming disadvantaged communities? Are they inflicting more criminal victimization?

Data from recent Department of Justice evaluations and federal studies on offender recidivism indicate that by not charging serious crimes, you create more harm, especially in distressed communities.

Background-Prosecutors Have Always Dismissed Or Deferred A Large Number Of Cases

Regardless of their political backgrounds, prosecutors have always dismissed or deferred (i.e., treatment or community service instead of charging) a large number of cases. They are reluctant to face the ire of judges for bringing weak cases to court. Every prosecutor’s office has limited resources; not every criminal case can or will be pursued. They choose strong cases and offer deals for guilty pleas

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 90 percent of criminal cases involve guilty pleas through plea bargaining. Robberies become aggravated assaults which is why, per federal research, violent offenders serve on average less than three years in prison.

Previous Data-Low Risk Or Weak Charges Dismissed Or Deferred

Per federal data: 16 to 50 percent of federal crimes are declined from prosecution, per “Federal Justice Statistics.”

Per state data: 34 percent of state felony cases are not convicted (approximately nine percent involve a deferred adjudication or diversion outcome), per “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties,” Cases Not Prosecuted.

But Going Beyond Low-Risk Offenders Produces More Criminality 

This article is partially based on two Milwaukee County Diversion Programs. One focused on deferring low-risk offenders (putting them in treatment) that CrimeSolutioins.Gov (the federal effort to rate program effectiveness) deemed effective. The diversion program treatment group for low-risk offenders had a rearrest rate (for any offense) of 17% compared to a rearrest rate of 28% for the comparison group, which is a difference of 11%, Crime Solutions.Gov.

The other Milwaukee County Diversion Program focused on medium-risk offenders and was found not to be successful. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in rearrest rates and days to first rearrest at the 2-year follow-up, Crime Solutions.Gov. The program had no effects.

The moral of the story is that when prosecutors go beyond low-risk offenders as to not prosecuting, the results mean more criminality.

Federal Revidivism Data

Beyond the Milwaukee evaluations, federal recidivism data based on arrests and incarcerations after prison while on parole and probation show that most offenders return to crime.

But when addressing probationers (who are closer to the people progressive prosecutors are not charging), within 3 years 43% of state felons on probation were rearrested for a felony. Half of the arrests were for a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault) or a drug offense. Results showed that within 3 years of sentencing, 62 percent either had a disciplinary hearing for violating a condition of their probation or were arrested for another felony.

If you included misdemeanors, the percentage arrested would be much higher.

As stated, prosecutors have always deferred (or dismissed) a percentage of defendants considered low risk who don’t have a substantial criminal history. Community service or restitution for dropped charges is a common tactic.

But per media reports, progressive prosecutors are dipping into a pool of far more serious charges including major thefts, firearm violations, felonies, and violent crimes.

If we are willing to extrapolate based on the results of the Milwaukee County Diversion Programs and federal recidivism research, going beyond low-risk offenders creates more criminality, especially for distressed communities hit hardest by crime.

Firearm and Violent Offenders Have The Highest Rates of Arrests And Should Be Prosecuted

Per The United States Sentencing Commission, firearm offenders have the highest rates of new crimes. Violent offenders (forthcoming article) are arrested for far more crimes than nonviolent offenders.

If you are dismissing or deferring violent or firearm crimes, it’s likely that you are creating more crime.

How Do Progressive Prosecutors Create More Harm?

Offenders are not stupid. They understand that if they are not held accountable for serious criminality, they will continue to commit more crimes. Are we sending the wrong messages to criminals?

Mayors throughout the county are calling for more arrests and for police officers to be more productive. But to cops, why arrest if there are no charges? Why submit yourself to possible harm and public humiliation if things go wrong if there’s no accountability?

Background-Progressive Prosecutors

There are fewer than 100 progressive prosecutors in the United States which means that the overwhelming majority remain rather traditional as to which crimes they dismiss and what crimes they prosecute. However, some progressives represent large cities and the decisions they make have major implications. Urban areas and minorities are being hammered by increased violence.

Progressive prosecutors believe (and were elected on those beliefs) that the justice system discriminates against people of color or low-income individuals. They want to defer or not prosecute to save those charged from a criminal conviction that may impact their future lives.

They believe that the justice system (and law enforcement) unfairly targets people of color and low-income people. By not prosecuting, they are “balancing” an unjust system and saving thousands from jail or prison or parole and probation.

There is immense pushback against progressive prosecutors from states taking away their rights to prosecute select violent crimes (Philidelphia) to recall efforts in California.

To my knowledge, there is no data summarizing the precise number of progressive prosecutors and what they believe constitutes a crime worth prosecuting. But per media reports, progressives are dropping serious cases involving firearms and violent criminals.

Their stance on thefts are creating absolute havoc in cities where shoplifting has run amok causing multiple stores to close or restrict hours thus depriving residents of places to buy groceries and prescription drugs. Smash and grab robberies are creating dilemmas for shoppers and employees. Businesses are leaving cities.

Examples Of Progressive Declined Prosecutions (quotes edited for brevity)

1. In Illinois, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx dropped all charges for nearly 30 percent of felony defendants, a drastic change from her predecessor’s 19 percent. She manages the second-largest prosecutor’s office in the country, and homicide rates in her jurisdiction are reaching historic highs. But instead of getting tough on crime, Foxx is using legal tactics to avoid applying murder charges.

A move prosecutors call “mutual combat“—depicting murders as consensual physical confrontations between individuals—turns communities in a politically correct Wild West. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office recently cited this doctrine to decline to file murder charges against a teen who stabbed a peer to death. “They’re saying that it’s mutual combat,” said the victim’s father, who noted his son was unarmed. “He stood over my son and finished him,” he added, “and that’s not murder?” Newsweek.

2. Some Pennsylvania lawmakers tried to wrest away some of Krasner’s authority last month, passing a law allowing for the state attorney general to prosecute certain gun crimes in Philadelphia, after Krasner had substantially increased the number of gun cases sent to a diversionary program, NBC News.

Conclusions

Violence and fear are skyrocketing in cities because we are changing the response to crime and telling offenders that accountability is reduced (or over) for a wide array of illegal acts. Progressive prosecutors are leading this effort.

Criminals are not stupid. They see what’s happening on our streets. They understand that prosecutors are not charging. They are getting out of jails without bail (and without supervision) after major arrests. We are at historic lows for corrections and parole and probation and other forms of accountability.

Cops are pulling back due to immense public and media criticism. Arrests are plummeting. The percentage of homicides and violent crimes solved are falling quickly. There is a massive movement to defund the police. Cops are reluctant to arrest for crimes that will not be prosecuted.

But, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thousands of police officers are leaving. Recruitment is plummeting. Proactive policing per the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences is the only modality per research that reduces crime and violence. We have told (demanded?) cops to stop proactivity through massive national protests, Police Strategies.

The result? Immense violence, firearm and security sales are skyrocketing, fear is at an all-time high and it’s minority communities that are being hit the hardest.

All reform seems to have done is to devastate those communities through massive violence, fear, PTSD, low school scores, elimination of economic development, a loss of places to shop, and the jobs that came with them. People are leaving cities.

Discussions of criminal justice reform need to be mixed with messages of accountability. Without the threat of arrests and sanctions, crime and violence increase to the point of making cities unliveable and ungovernable.

Most progressives have always made the welfare of offenders the priority rather than the protection of the public. Considering massive violence and record fear in distressed communities, they miscalculated badly.

See More