Use real data, rather than emotions, in spending tax dollars to address crime
Editor:
I appreciate Mr. Lauricella taking the time to respond, and I want to clarify, I am not dismissing concerns about public safety. I am dismissing concerns about public safety that are built on anecdote while ignoring the data in front of us. Those are not the same thing.
Any honest debate about safety in our communities requires a careful blend of data and lived experience, not one at the expense of the other. Mr. Lauricella has been a vocal advocate for fiscal responsibility, so I’ll ask directly: is it responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars to fund programs, initiatives, and legislation based on how some people feel, particularly when those feelings run contrary to what the data actually shows?
Mr. Lauricella points to a rise in unpunished “quality-of-life” offenses, and here is where we clearly part ways. So-called victimless crimes and quality-of-life offenses are precisely the category where we’d be better served addressing root causes rather than reflexively reaching for punishment. The prevailing instinct among hardline conservatives on this issue is a punitive one, which conveniently keeps the prison-industrial complex well fed. Perhaps that’s no accident, given how central the prison system is to the economic “health” of our region.
From what I’ve observed, public criticism of bail reform in New York tends to lump every offense together — petty theft and manslaughter treated as though they sit on the same shelf. That criticism conveniently ignores both the facts and the actual intent of the legislation, which is to reduce recidivism rates for low-level offenses. This is exactly where data matters, because one person’s lived experience, however real to them, isn’t a stand-in for the experience of an entire population. I don’t think Mr. Lauricella is actually disputing the validity of the research. I think he’d simply prefer that “observing reality” mean whatever aligns with his existing opinion.
I’ll skip the broad brushstrokes this time and instead leave Mr. Lauricella with a question. He argues that academia and statistical models shouldn’t “supersede the firsthand experience of local business owners, residents and crime victims.” Is that a standard you’re prepared to apply consistently? Take, for instance, the firsthand experience of parents, teachers, school administrators, and survivors of school shootings — should their testimony be what drives legislation restricting access to firearms? Or take the firsthand experience of survivors of rape, incest, or molestation — are conservatives equally willing to let those lived experiences shape how we legislate abortion? Or is the anecdote-over-evidence approach reserved for the topics where it happens to be politically convenient?
Much of this latest letter reads as an argument for governance by the loudest minority rather than the majority informed by evidence. It would help if Mr. Lauricella defined, in concrete terms, what qualifies as a “genuine community concern,” listed the actual problems facing Orleans County, and identified their real causes. Absent that, this amounts to little more than an appeal to emotion.
Matthew Ballard
LeRoy










































