Prosecutors play a vital role in the criminal justice system, determining not just which cases to pursue but also what charges to file and penalties to seek. Over the past decade, some prosecutors have developed approaches that aim to reduce racial and economic disparities and unjust outcomes in the legal system — such as excessive sentences or the criminalization of poverty through cash bail — while preserving public safety.
Far from a unified group, these prosecutors bring many different approaches to their work. They span the political spectrum and are found in urban and rural jurisdictions alike. They are often grouped under the label “progressive prosecutors” or “reform-minded prosecutors.” For the purposes of this analysis, we use the term “pro-reform prosecutors” to indicate chief district attorneys, county attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, and state attorneys who campaigned on or promised to reimagine the role of their office to broadly reduce unjust disparities in the justice system and decrease unnecessary incarceration.
Some critics have alleged that pro-reform strategies have driven increases in crime. We evaluate those claims, drawing on recent crime data and an understanding of how the criminal justice system works in practice, and find that these claims lack support. In fact, there is no evidence that pro-reform prosecutors are responsible for crime rising or falling.
No Clear Relationship Between Crime Trends and Pro-Reform Prosecutors
First, we use data from the last decade, which includes the period of time during the Covid-19 pandemic, to evaluate how crime trends have changed in cities with and without pro-reform prosecutors. Previous research on this subject has, with some exceptions, found little to no relationship between the inauguration of a pro-reform prosecutor and a measurable increase in crime, even after using sophisticated statistical strategies.
Our analysis, described below, also finds no clear relationship between the pro-reform prosecutorial approach and the incidence of crime. Using data collected by the Council on Criminal Justice, we compared aggravated assault, larceny, and homicide trends in cities with pro-reform prosecutors to trends in cities without pro-reform prosecutors. Assault and larceny were selected because of their frequency, allowing clearer analysis, and because they are more likely to be affected by prosecutorial decision-making. Murder was chosen because of its seriousness and because those crimes spiked sharply during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Researchers have previously relied on several criteria to define pro-reform prosecutors, including a focus on the use of diversion policies, increased resources devoted to police accountability units, use of data to mitigate racial bias, reduced support for excessively long punishments, reviews for claims of wrongful convictions, and limitations on the use of money bail. In this article, we build on these methods and select only those prosecutors who have been consistently categorized as pro-reform by other researchers in the field.
You can read the full article at the Brennan Center for Justice.