Crime, by its very nature, thrives in the shadows. But what happens when those shadows are cast not by criminals alone, but by the very people charged with reporting, prosecuting, and explaining crime to the public?
In recent years, a troubling pattern has emerged: crime statistics—long a tool for policymakers, journalists, and citizens to assess the state of public safety—have become increasingly unreliable, manipulated, or selectively reported.
This distortion is not random. It often aligns with the ideological goals of Progressive politicians and media outlets, who seek to protect their policy reputations at the expense of truth.
This article will explore the structure, reliability, and growing manipulation of crime statistics in the United States. We will examine how Progressive policies such as decriminalization, soft-on-crime prosecution, and defunding or demoralizing the police have altered not just the reality on the ground, but the numbers that supposedly reflect that reality. We will show how crime reporting has been shaped by political agendas, how ordinary citizens are increasingly reluctant to report crimes, and how some cities have stopped sharing crime data altogether.
At stake is more than academic accuracy. When crime statistics are manipulated or misrepresented, citizens are left vulnerable, communities decay, and the justice system loses its integrity. Truth is the first casualty in a war of narratives—and in this war, the losers are not Progressive politicians or journalists, but the law-abiding citizens who are told not to believe their own eyes.
Where Crime Statistics Come From
To understand how crime statistics are being distorted, we must first understand how they are gathered. There are two primary sources for national crime data in the United States:
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program
Established in 1930 and administered by the FBI, the UCR has long been the standard for measuring crime across jurisdictions. It collects data from thousands of law enforcement agencies on various categories of crime—originally focusing on eight “index crimes,” including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
The UCR’s most significant update occurred with the implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which was intended to offer more detail about each incident—like the location, relationship between victim and offender, and whether weapons or drugs were involved. However, the transition to NIBRS has revealed deep cracks in the reporting system.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Run by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the NCVS surveys a representative sample of American households to estimate how many crimes occurred, whether they were reported, and basic details about the incident and victim.
Where the UCR focuses on what police departments report, the NCVS attempts to measure crime that is never officially reported to law enforcement—so-called “dark figure” crime. This is useful but limited by human memory, willingness to report to surveyors, and statistical modeling.
Both systems have limitations. Neither offers real-time data. Both depend on cooperation—either from law enforcement or from private citizens. And both are now caught in a whirlwind of ideological disruption.
The Holes in the System: Incomplete and Missing Data
Even in the best of circumstances, crime data is far from perfect. But recent years have exposed a collapse in both reporting participation and data quality.
The NIBRS Collapse
In January 2021, the FBI officially stopped publishing data from the older UCR system and required agencies to use NIBRS instead. But only about 63% of U.S. law enforcement agencies made the switch in the first year. That means over one-third of the nation—including major cities like New York and Los Angeles—failed to report complete crime data to the FBI in 2021.
The consequence? Glaring holes in the national crime picture. When cities like Chicago or San Francisco don’t provide full data, crime appears to “drop” simply because it is no longer recorded. It’s like weighing a football team’s performance while ignoring the score from a third of their games.
Localities That Refuse to Submit
Some local governments—often those with the most to hide—simply don’t participate in national data submission. New York City didn’t submit 2021 crime data under the new system. Neither did Chicago. And yet, these are precisely the cities where Progressive policies such as bail reform, decriminalization, and “equity-focused” prosecution are being tested. The absence of data prevents meaningful accountability.
Data Delay and Suppression
In some cases, data is delayed or withheld for strategic reasons. Reports may be released quietly during holidays or late on Friday afternoons to avoid news coverage. In other cases, reports are repackaged with misleading summaries, downplaying negative trends.
This systemic breakdown—worsened by ideological incentives—leaves the public in the dark and allows Progressive officials to avoid accountability for rising crime.
The Ideological Filter: How Progressive Policies Skew the Numbers
Crime statistics are not simply passive reflections of reality—they are shaped by definitions, categorization, and discretionary enforcement. That means ideology plays a powerful role in what gets counted, what gets ignored, and how crime is interpreted. When Progressive politicians and prosecutors prioritize political optics over public safety, the numbers start to lie.
Redefining Crime
Progressives have increasingly championed the “redefinition” of crime categories. For example, theft under a certain dollar amount—often $950 to $1,000—has been downgraded in states like California from a felony to a misdemeanor. In many jurisdictions, such misdemeanors are now de facto decriminalized, as police are instructed not to arrest and prosecutors decline to charge.
Consider this: If shoplifting goes from felony to misdemeanor and then becomes unenforced, the crime still occurs, but it no longer appears in felony statistics. It may not appear at all if police don’t respond or businesses stop reporting. As a result, it can look like property crime is decreasing when, in fact, it’s metastasizing.
Redefining Victims and Offenders
Progressive ideology also tends to recast criminals as victims of “systemic injustice,” and views law enforcement as enforcers of “oppression.” This has led to policies where intent or background is weighed more heavily than the act itself. For example, prosecutors like George Gascón in Los Angeles and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan have implemented policies where violent felonies may be downgraded to misdemeanors if they believe the offender was economically disadvantaged or psychologically stressed.
This introduces subjectivity into crime reporting. If two identical crimes are committed—say, an armed robbery—but one is prosecuted as felony robbery and the other as “petty theft” due to “context,” only one will show up as a violent crime in national statistics.
The “Restorative Justice” Illusion
Another ideological trend that distorts statistics is the adoption of “restorative justice” programs. Under these models, offenders—especially juveniles or minorities—are diverted away from prosecution into alternative programs. While some of these programs can be helpful when used responsibly, many Progressive-run cities abuse them to avoid prosecuting serious crimes altogether.
This keeps the crime off the books and lets politicians claim progress—without any meaningful change in public safety. The reality on the ground may worsen while press releases tout reductions in incarceration and “crime.”
When Crime Isn’t a Crime Anymore: Decriminalization and Its Effects
Decriminalization—often sold as a compassionate, forward-thinking policy—has had profound effects on crime reporting and urban decay. From drugs to prostitution to property theft, numerous behaviors once considered crimes are now tolerated, which warps both the statistics and the quality of life for ordinary citizens.
Drug Decriminalization and the “Safe Use” Myth
In cities like Portland and San Francisco, Progressive officials have decriminalized hard drugs like heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines in the name of “harm reduction.” In theory, this approach aims to reduce overdose deaths and the spread of disease by providing clean needles and supervised drug use sites. In practice, it creates lawless zones where addicts camp in public parks, overdose on sidewalks, and rob to sustain their addiction.
Because the possession of drugs is no longer criminal, arrests fall—yet drug use, overdoses, and drug-related thefts skyrocket. Statistics then report a “drop” in drug crime, while the real-world problem becomes more visible than ever. The public is gaslit into thinking things are improving when they are plainly not.
Petty Theft and Quality-of-Life Crimes
Progressive cities have also embraced the decriminalization of so-called “quality-of-life” crimes: loitering, public urination, prostitution, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and even aggressive panhandling. In many places, even burglary and vehicle break-ins go uncharged unless video evidence or physical confrontation is involved.
Businesses suffer. Residents flee. Yet crime numbers often appear stable—or even improved—because the offenses are no longer processed through the criminal justice system. Again, the illusion of success is maintained while social disorder grows.
The Feedback Loop
This redefinition creates a feedback loop: lower arrest rates lead to less reported crime, which is used to justify more leniency. Progressive mayors and district attorneys then cite these artificial trends as proof that their policies work—even as public complaints, insurance claims, and citizen flight tell a different story.
A Broken Chain of Accountability: Soros Prosecutors and the Collapse of Justice
One of the most consequential changes in recent years has been the rise of ideologically motivated district attorneys—often backed by millions in campaign funding from George Soros–aligned political action committees. These DAs have implemented sweeping reforms that go far beyond the mandate of their offices, and they’ve done so with devastating consequences for crime statistics and public safety.
What Are Soros Prosecutors?
The term “Soros prosecutor” refers to a wave of Progressive district attorneys whose campaigns received substantial financial backing from PACs supported by George Soros. These include:
- Larry Krasner (Philadelphia)
- Kim Foxx (Chicago)
- George Gascón (Los Angeles)
- Chesa Boudin (San Francisco, recalled in 2022)
- Kim Gardner (St. Louis, resigned in 2023)
- Marilyn Mosby (Baltimore)
Each of these DAs has pursued an agenda of radical decarceration, bail reform, non-prosecution of entire categories of crime, and antagonism toward law enforcement.
Declining to Prosecute—by Design
One of the chief ways Soros prosecutors influence crime statistics is by simply refusing to prosecute. In Philadelphia, for example, the number of criminal cases withdrawn or dismissed under Larry Krasner rose sharply—meaning that even when police made arrests, the DA’s office chose not to proceed. The result? Official clearance rates drop, conviction rates plummet, and crime appears more tolerable on paper than it is in reality.
Antagonizing the Police
Soros prosecutors often adopt a posture of hostility toward their own police departments. They refuse to prosecute resisting arrest. They prioritize charges against officers rather than criminals. This breaks the chain of accountability: police know their work will not result in convictions, and so morale collapses. Arrests fall. Crime rises. But the data can be spun to make it seem like arrests are falling because fewer crimes are happening.
The Silent Victim: Citizen Refusal to Report Crime
When citizens lose faith in law enforcement or the criminal justice system, they stop reporting crimes. This silence is not born of apathy—it is the bitter fruit of hopelessness. In many Progressive-run cities, crime goes unreported not because it doesn’t exist, but because people have learned the hard way that reporting it makes no difference.
When Police Don’t Respond
In cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, police departments have been stretched thin by defunding, political interference, and public hostility. Many have adopted triage systems in which officers do not respond to so-called “low-level” crimes—such as shoplifting, vandalism, vehicle break-ins, or even home burglaries if no one is home.
This sends a message: you’re on your own.
Citizens learn quickly. Why report a theft if police won’t come? Why report a trespasser if the prosecutor won’t file charges? Over time, the threshold of what is considered “worth reporting” gets higher and higher, leading to a statistical illusion of improvement even as conditions deteriorate.
Broken Windows, Broken Trust
The “broken windows” theory of policing, popularized in the 1990s, held that failure to address small crimes invites larger ones. Progressive cities today have flipped that model on its head: ignore the small crimes and hope the big ones don’t follow. But they always do.
When residents report public drug use or loitering and see no response, they stop calling. When small businesses report serial thefts and nothing happens, they stop filing claims. The result is that crime is undercounted, not because it isn’t occurring, but because it has been normalized.
Community Abandonment
In neighborhoods with high minority populations—many of which suffer under the twin burdens of crime and Progressive policies—residents are often the most reluctant to report crimes. This is not because they want lawlessness, but because they know the system won’t protect them. Worse, in areas dominated by gang culture or organized theft rings, reporting can lead to retaliation. This is particularly true when prosecutors do not enforce witness protection or hold offenders long enough to disrupt their influence.
When citizens are afraid to report crime, the entire justice system collapses from the bottom up—and the statistics will never reflect the suffering that follows.
Which Cities Are the Most Dangerous—and Who Runs Them?
To truly understand whether ideology affects crime, we must ask a blunt question: Where is crime the worst? And who governs those places?
Violent Crime Hotspots
According to FBI and local data (where available), the cities with the highest violent crime rates tend to follow a consistent pattern. These include:
- St. Louis, MO – long plagued by high homicide rates
- Baltimore, MD – persistent issues with gun violence
- Detroit, MI – formerly one of the most dangerous cities in America
- Memphis, TN – consistently high in both violent and property crime
- Chicago, IL – a city where shootings are routine, despite gun control
- Philadelphia, PA – experiencing a surge in homicides
- New Orleans, LA – fluctuating but consistently violent
- Oakland, CA – increasingly lawless under radical policies
These cities have one thing in common: Progressive leadership. In most, Democrats have held mayorships and district attorney offices for decades. They are also jurisdictions where Progressive policies—such as bail reform, “de-policing,” and “equity-based” prosecution—have been vigorously pursued.
The Conservative Contrast
Compare this with cities under more conservative leadership:
- Fort Worth, TX
- Tulsa, OK
- Mesa, AZ
- Virginia Beach, VA
- Boise, ID
These cities routinely rank lower in both violent and property crime. Their governments tend to support proactive policing, traditional prosecution models, and community engagement without ideological interference. They may not be crime-free, but they are not crippled by the kind of lawlessness seen in Progressive strongholds.
Objections and Reality
Progressives often object that poverty, not policy, is to blame for crime. But this overlooks two important facts:
- Poverty does not explain why crime worsens in cities after Progressive reforms.
- Conservative cities with similar income levels often have much lower crime.
It’s not just about demographics—it’s about governance. Policy choices have consequences, and crime data—where honestly reported—tells the story.
Statistical Sleight of Hand: How Progressives Mislead the Public
One of the most powerful tools in the Progressive playbook is not to suppress crime data, but to manipulate it. This manipulation takes many forms, often involving statistical tricks designed to confuse, mislead, or comfort the public. Here are the most common techniques.
Conflating Violent and Non-Violent Crime
When confronted with rising homicide rates or carjackings, Progressive politicians often counter with statistics showing that “overall crime is down.” This tactic includes non-violent offenses like shoplifting, fraud, or public intoxication in the totals, then averages them with violent offenses to create a misleading picture of improvement.
Example: A city may experience a 30% rise in homicides but a 20% drop in vandalism due to underreporting or downgrading. Officials then trumpet “net improvements,” ignoring the devastating toll of the more serious crimes.
Downgrading Offenses
Another common trick is to quietly reclassify crimes. Armed robbery becomes “theft with intimidation.” Aggravated assault becomes “simple assault.” Even sexual offenses can be downgraded if no weapon was used. The crime still occurred, but the label changes—making the statistics look better.
This technique became infamous in San Francisco under Chesa Boudin, where numerous violent and repeat offenders were released with no charges or downgraded charges, even after multiple arrests. His recall by voters in 2022 was a rare instance of public backlash against such deceptive governance.
Using Per Capita Rates Without Context
Per capita crime rates can be useful, but they are often deployed to distract from sheer volume. A Progressive mayor might point out that City A has a higher per capita homicide rate than City B, even though City B has far more murders in absolute terms. For families living in fear, those distinctions are cold comfort.
Other Deceptive Techniques in Crime Narratives
While conflating and downgrading crimes are the most obvious forms of statistical manipulation, they are far from the only tools in the Progressive toolkit. Over the last decade, a wide range of rhetorical, political, and technical tactics have been deployed to spin crime narratives in ways that obscure the truth and protect failed policies.
Here are several of the most insidious:
Cherry-Picking Time Frames
Progressive politicians often cite carefully chosen windows of time to claim success. For instance, a city might see a brief seasonal dip in shootings during the winter, and leaders will trumpet it as evidence their policies are working—while ignoring that the overall year-to-year trend is still upward.
Similarly, comparing the present to artificially high crime peaks (such as the 1990s) instead of more recent baselines gives the impression of long-term improvement even if the recent trajectory is alarming.
Blaming COVID-19 and Other “External Factors”
While the COVID-19 pandemic did disrupt society and contribute to certain crime increases, it has become a convenient scapegoat. Progressive mayors and DAs point to “pandemic stress” or “economic hardship” to explain crime spikes—ignoring the fact that some cities with similar challenges saw crime decrease or remain stable under more traditional law enforcement approaches.
Worse, blaming COVID allows them to evade responsibility for defunding police, relaxing prosecutions, and empowering criminals through bail reform. It’s not the virus—it’s the policies.
Using “Reported Crime” as a Smokescreen
In many Progressive cities, officials highlight declines in reported crimes without addressing the plummeting public confidence that drives those numbers down. As shown earlier, citizens are increasingly unwilling to report crimes that won’t be investigated or prosecuted. “Reported crime” can drop even while actual crime rises.
Selective Transparency and “Crime Dashboards”
Some city governments use online dashboards or data portals to give the illusion of transparency. However, these are often limited to certain time frames, categories, or filters that exclude the most politically damaging trends. Crime mapping software may omit entire neighborhoods or use vague language like “public safety incident” rather than clear terms like “shooting” or “rape.”
These tools allow politicians to claim openness while actually controlling the narrative.
Definitional Drift and Euphemism
Progressives frequently use euphemisms to minimize the perceived seriousness of crime. Riots become “mostly peaceful protests.” Looting becomes “redistributive justice.” Armed robbery is described as “economic desperation.” Language is wielded as a shield for ideology, replacing clarity with narrative control.
George Orwell warned in Politics and the English Language that political language is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” That is precisely what has happened in the discourse surrounding crime.
Conclusion: The Moral Cost of Manipulating Reality
Behind the numbers, the policies, and the spin are real people.
There are single mothers raising children in neighborhoods abandoned by Progressive leaders. There are elderly citizens trapped in apartments where gunfire is a nightly soundtrack. There are store owners who wake each morning to broken glass and silent police lines. There are children who walk to school past open-air drug markets and bodies slumped over in fentanyl comas.
Crime is not an abstract statistic. It is a moral reality—an affront to God’s order, a rupture in the social covenant, and a failure of human responsibility. When Progressive politicians, prosecutors, and media outlets manipulate crime statistics to protect their ideological vision, they do more than deceive. They betray.
They betray the truth.
They betray the victims.
They betray the public trust.
And they betray the biblical and constitutional duty of government to punish evil and protect the innocent (Romans 13:3–4).
This is not a partisan appeal for “tough on crime” slogans, nor a call to ignore the complexities of poverty, addiction, or mental health. It is a plea for moral clarity—clarity that recognizes the difference between a justice system shaped by facts and one driven by ideology.
When cities governed by Progressive policies refuse to report data, redefine crime, antagonize law enforcement, and manipulate public perception, they create a vacuum of accountability. That vacuum is filled not with justice but with chaos.
Truth is not subjective. Neither is safety. And until crime is counted honestly, it will not be conquered.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Ruthless Podcast discusses the intervention of the Trump administration in Washington, DC, to curb increasing crime.
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
I use words that reflect the “woke” culture and their re-definitions sometimes. It is hard to communicate effectively without using their twisted vocabulary. Rest assured that I do not believe gender ideology or “Progressivism”. Words and phrases like “trans man”, “trans women” , “transgender”, “transition” or similar words and phrases are nonsensical and reflect a distorted, imaginary worldview where men can become women and vice-versa. The word “Progressive” itself is a propagandistic word that implies the Progressives are the positive force in society, whereas in reality their cultic belief system is very corrosive to mankind.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.