Document Type
Essay
Publication Date
2023
Publication
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Volume
50
Abbreviation
Fordham Urb. L.J.
First Page
973
Abstract
This Essay examines the political vulnerabilities facing the progressive prosecution movement, arguing that two core features of its public brand—emphasizing a fundamental break from traditional prosecution and pledging to “do less” by shrinking the criminal justice footprint—have inadvertently exposed reform‑oriented prosecutors to intensified backlash. Drawing on recent examples, the Essay shows how framing progressive prosecution as radically different obscures the long-standing prosecutorial tools these offices still rely on, enabling critics to portray routine exercises of discretion as unprecedented or dangerous. It further explains how decarceral commitments make progressive prosecutors easy targets when crime or disorder rises, both because voters may assume under-enforcement is to blame and because the brand’s focus on restraint makes it harder to communicate affirmative steps taken to promote public safety. The Essay argues that these pitfalls are not inevitable: progressive prosecutors can mitigate them by highlighting the historical roots of their practices, actively supporting non‑criminal public‑safety strategies, using non‑carceral legal tools such as civil actions and injunctions, and publicly partnering with other agencies to address root causes of crime. These approaches, the Essay concludes, could help stabilize the progressive prosecution brand and maintain public support even amid heightened concerns about crime.