The debate over urban crime today seems to be following a familiar refrain, much like the contemporary remake of an old movie. In the 1960s, there was a push to adopt more forgiving criminal laws during a period of perceived public safety. As a result, more offenders were released and crime began to rise. The national political parties disagreed on how to respond and one party largely refused to engage in the debate. This inaction contributed to a public backlash that helped pave the way for the election of Ronald Reagan as the 40th president of the United States.
Today, a “remake” may be unfolding in strikingly similar ways. After a period of adopting soft on crime policies crime is again rising. In 2024, Washington, D.C. had a homicide rate of 27.3 per 100,000 residents, the fourth highest in the country. If the capital were a state, it would have the highest homicide rate in the nation. Carjackings surged 547% between 2018 and 2023 and juvenile arrests have increased each year since 2020, including cases involving youth with histories of violent crime. Meanwhile, police leadership faced suspension amid allegations of manipulating crime statistics to present a rosier picture about crime.
As urban crime has risen, one side of the debate has largely ignored it, behaving much like Chico Marx’s character in Duck Soup, when he impersonates Groucho and asks, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” For years, political think tanks have issued reports claiming that crime was not increasing, citing FBI statistics that showed a decline. This narrative persisted despite warnings from social scientists that the FBI was transitioning to a new crime-reporting system, thus rendering the data incomplete. In October 2024, updated FBI statistics confirmed that crime was indeed rising, effectively dismantling the earlier narrative and likely fueling the public backlash over urban safety concerns.
Accordingly, this split in the narrative has grown. Law-and-order advocates argue that the public is justified in trusting what it sees with its own eyes. As an old Biblical saying reminds us—practical wisdom passed down through the ages—people should pay attention to what is plainly in front of them, rather than getting lost in arguments or statistics. Sometimes the simplest observations are the most reliable guide for action.
This is a particularly difficult period to create crime policy based on data. Academic studies are typically hidden behind paywalls, while reports from advocacy groups are readily available with a simple Google search. The conclusions from the two groups can be contradictory. This discrepancy creates challenges in separating evidence-based conclusions from opinion-driven advocacy narratives. One example is the ongoing effort to defund the police. Advocacy groups argue that reducing or eliminating police presence will make the public safer. However, this position is not supported by academia.
This issue was studied in the context of the Capitol Hill Occupation Protest (CHOP) in Seattle, which operated as an autonomous zone for nearly a month before being removed at the mayor’s request. The study was conducted via a microsynthetic control evaluation which compares comparable areas to identify measurable changes. Researchers examined three areas: the CHOP zone itself, the two-block surrounding area and the entire precinct. They found that crime increased 132.9% in the CHOP zone, 77.5% in the surrounding area and 27.8% in the precinct overall. The study reported 95% support in the control evaluation model.
Despite these findings, reformers continue to argue that meaningful police reform can only occur by reducing direct contact between law enforcement and the public. The disconnect between empirical evidence and advocacy narratives underscores the difficulty of crafting crime policy that is both informed and effective.
Disagreement over what the data actually shows is pervasive throughout the debate on criminal justice reform. In Cook County, Illinois, the clerk of court issued a report indicating that 75% of criminal defendants failed to appear for court. Advocates simply questioned the accuracy of the numbers, ignoring the fact that this is a recurring problem in jurisdictions using simple release systems.
In Harris County, the Houston Police Officers Union conducted a one-week study of the County’s criminal courts, employing simple release and found a similarly high 75% failure-to-appear rate. In addition, analysis of Harris County data compiled over two years revealed an average nonappearance rate exceeding 80% among defendants released under simple release. In Houston, advocates responded as they did in Cook County, questioning the conclusions rather than addressing the disturbing pattern.
It is difficult to navigate the advocacy positions that call for reducing police presence and redirecting funds to social programs, while reconciling these proposals with studies showing that fewer officers on the streets lead to increased crime.
The recent federal takeover of local police in Washington, D.C., appears to demonstrate that increasing the presence of law enforcement will reduce crime. Support from residents for these measures makes it difficult to argue that crime was not impacted. The D.C. Mayor even acknowledged that the federal law enforcement surge lowered crime and added her own executive order requiring the city to coordinate with federal authorities “to the maximum extent allowable by law.” This would seem to make it difficult to argue that crime is not being reduced.
In 2014, California’s Proposition 47 passed, reclassifying certain felony crimes as misdemeanors, including theft of property valued under $950. Supporters argued that the change would allow defendants to pursue employment, while still being held accountable for their actions. However, after the proposition passed, some district attorneys announced that they would no longer prosecute these crimes. Voters were not asked in the referendum whether they wanted to decriminalize theft under $950 and it is doubtful they would have supported the measure if that had been the argument.
As crime increased, advocates maintained that the public was still safe. When the federal government instructed workers based at the Nancy Pelosi Federal Building in San Francisco to work from home because it was not safe in the area around the building, advocates claimed there was “nothing to see here.” Meanwhile, commercial property values dropped to less than half their value, tax revenues plunged and several mayors began sounding the alarm.
Looking ahead, the debate seems to be shifting away from whether crime is a problem—and more toward how best to address it. The experience of the 1960s shows that when one party refuses to engage in a meaningful discussion of the issue, it risks being left behind as the pendulum continues to swing in favor of public safety.
In addressing the different ways to improve public safety in our inner cities, there are common-sense solutions that have already been shown to work. One example is the president’s proposal to end the cashless bail system. What he is advocating is ending “simple release” as the primary mode of releasing defendants after arrest.
Simple release goes by different names depending on the state. In New York, it is called release without bail; in California, zero-bail release; and in Texas, release on a personal bond. While the terminology differs, the system is the same: defendants are released and agree to return to answer the charges against them based solely on their promise to return to court.
Data suggests that this approach is deeply flawed. In California, the district attorney in Yolo County compared nonviolent offenders released on a surety bond during the COVID pandemic with those released on simple release. The results showed that those released without bail were 200% more likely to commit a new violent offense within 18 months.
Why the disparity? One likely explanation lies in the high failure to appear rates documented in Illinois and Texas. Such nonappearance rates create case backlogs and put pressure on the criminal justice system to dismiss more cases. This creates chaos and sends a message to offenders that there are no real consequences—essentially a green light to commit more crime. After all, no criminal case can be resolved if the defendant never shows up in court.
But getting people to court is only the first step in improving public safety. Urban areas must impose a system of accountability when defendants fail to appear or violate a condition of their bond. The criminal justice system cannot function if the accused skips court 17 times without consequence. Stricter enforcement may initially cause a spike in incarcerations, but once defendants learn there are consequences for their actions, their behavior is very likely to change.
Another problem is prosecutors and judges who are unwilling to enforce the law. They must be identified and removed from office. For example, when Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón’s office argued that the victim of a crime was not the “real” victim, it raised the question: if the defense attorney and the prosecutor were both arguing for the criminal defendant, exactly who was advocating for the victim? Gascón lost his bid for reelection in November by a large margin.
Finally, there must be a serious conversation about jail capacity. In some states, advocates have effectively forced reform not through public debate, but by refusing to build additional capacity in their jails. This backdoor approach has had the practical effect of imposing soft-on-crime policies without public consent.
If today’s trends are repeating the cycle of the 1960s, the pendulum has swung even farther in one direction—and the shift back may be just as extreme. The time has passed for urban leaders to insist that nothing is wrong or to dismiss rising crime as a mirage. Like a remake of an old movie, the storyline is familiar: public safety concerns will eventually eclipse abstract arguments. The narrative has already shifted and the debate is now moving toward solutions. But for one side to have a meaningful role in shaping those solutions, it must first acknowledge that a problem exists.
