Move over progressive prosecutors, pragmatic prosecutors are the new “it” thing

This is in response to breaking news. It has been updated. Contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the scholar.

Following the arc of criminal justice over the past few decades, clear trends start to emerge. From the “tough-on-crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s that fueled over-incarceration to the progressive wave advocating for sweeping reforms intended to keep more people out of jails and prisons, the pendulum has swung dramatically in just a short period of time. But now we are entering what might be a “sweet spot” that better balances fairness and safety. Evidence of this trend is apparent in a new kind of prosecutor popping up in states across the country.

Despite a recent drop in national crime rates—and drastic reductions since the 1990s—public concern about crime and safety remains high. High-profile incidents, sensationalized media coverage, and a rise in homelessness have fueled the perception that crime is getting worse. Much of the blame has been directed at so-called “soft-on-crime” policies and progressive prosecutors, whose reforms—such as reducing the use of cash bail, diverting low-level offenders from the system, and shorter sentences—are often criticized as prioritizing offenders over victims.

Enter the pragmatic prosecutor. This “new” type of prosecutor doesn’t choose sides between punitive crackdowns or lenient approaches. Instead, they reimagine justice as a complex ecosystem that requires strategic, targeted interventions that draw from the strengths of both philosophies.

This shift is most visible with high-profile recalls and electoral defeats of progressive prosecutors. Chesa Boudin’s recall in San Francisco marked the start, signaling growing public frustration with policies perceived as undermining public safety. The trend continued with the recall of Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price; George Gascón’s defeat by a “hard middle” independent in Los Angeles; and Kim Foxx’s retirement in Illinois’ Cook County, replaced by a prosecutor promising a more balanced approach.

Many of these new pragmatic prosecutors aren’t rejecting reforms, however. They are generally making reasonable changes within the law to policies that address risk. For example, Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke acknowledges that eliminating cash bail made the system more fair, but she instituted a new policy that gives judges more discretion to detain individuals when needed. Similarly, while the pragmatic prosecutor who defeated “tough-on-crime” opponents in Albany, New York, conceded that New York’s bail reform isn’t working, he doesn’t intend to change it. Rather, he plans to better use the law to its full limits to make it more effective.

These results reflect a fundamental community sentiment: Safety cannot be sacrificed at the expense of reform. Pragmatic prosecutors are instituting a sophisticated approach that rejects extreme partisanship and focuses on data and research. They are holding individuals accountable while recognizing that overly harsh punishment can make crime worse. At the same time, they are also focusing intensive resources on the most violent and high-risk defendants while prioritizing rehabilitation for others.

This isn’t about being soft or hard—it’s about being smart and effective. We can expect fewer dropped cases, more targeted interventions for repeat offenders, and tougher approaches to violent crime. Simultaneously, we can anticipate expanded diversion programs, innovative rehabilitation strategies, and investments in data-driven approaches that address root causes of criminal behavior.

Pragmatic prosecutors are not a new phenomenon; they have operated effectively within the criminal justice system for many years. However, the current political and social climate has compelled these professionals to step forward.

The 2024 election has only accelerated this trend. With Republican gains at federal and state levels, prosecutors who demonstrate a commitment to balanced, principled justice—rather than allegiance to specific political narratives—may be key to continuing meaningful systemic improvements. Critics may argue this is simply political compromise. But true pragmatism isn’t compromise—it’s a more sophisticated understanding of justice. It recognizes that public safety and individual dignity are not mutually exclusive, but fundamentally interconnected.

The future of criminal justice shouldn’t be about scoring political points. It should be about building systems that truly protect communities, support rehabilitation, and uphold the fundamental dignity of all individuals involved in the system.

So, say goodbye to the progressive prosecutors and be grateful for the transformative work they did in paving the way for a more equitable system. At the same time, let’s acknowledge the lessons learned from tough-on-crime prosecutors, whose focus on accountability and community safety helped shape the conversation. It’s time to welcome the pragmatic prosecutors—and let’s hope they can deliver practical solutions for fairness, safety, and justice.