If NY doesn’t amend discovery laws, proverbial ‘broken windows’ will remain broken

New York Post - Mar 30th, 2025

New Yorkers are increasingly concerned about crime and disorder, driving public safety to the forefront of issues in the upcoming mayoral race. Crime rates for both violent and property offenses have surged 25% to 30% above 2019 levels, while low-level offenses like fare evasion and public disturbances are rampant. The current criminal justice approach, perceived as lenient due to laws like 'Raise the Age' and the 2020 discovery law, has led to a spike in youth arrests and a significant increase in felony dismissals. New Yorkers are calling for amendments to these laws to ensure that all crimes, regardless of severity, are addressed effectively.

Critics argue that reforms aimed at reducing incarceration have inadvertently allowed crime to flourish, particularly low-level offenses that destabilize communities and erode trust. With Governor Kathy Hochul proposing amendments in the fiscal year 2026 budget, debates are intensifying over the necessity of holding individuals accountable for misdemeanors. The situation is further complicated by advocates like Kathryn Miller, who highlight the racial implications of policing but are met with resistance from those who emphasize the need for a comprehensive justice system. As Albany considers these proposals, New Yorkers insist on a justice system where every crime is met with appropriate consequences, rejecting narratives that trivialize misdemeanors.

New York City Public Safety Criminal Justice Reform Governor Kathy Hochul Crime Rates Raise The Age Discovery Law Youth Arrests

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses timely and important issues related to crime and criminal justice reform in New York City, capturing public interest with its focus on safety and legislative impacts. Its clear and accessible writing style makes it easy to read, but the lack of balanced perspectives and detailed sourcing limits its accuracy and depth.

While the article effectively raises concerns about recent reforms and their perceived effects on crime rates, it presents a one-sided view that may contribute to controversy and reinforce existing biases. The emotionally charged language and strong stance against current policies have the potential to engage readers and provoke debate, but a more nuanced approach with diverse viewpoints would enhance its contribution to meaningful discussions.

Overall, the article's strengths lie in its timeliness and public interest, but improvements in balance, source quality, and transparency would elevate its quality and impact.

Accuracy

The story makes several factual claims regarding crime rates, legislative impacts, and public concerns in New York City. It asserts that crime rates are significantly above pre-2019 levels, which is a verifiable claim through NYPD statistics. However, the article does not provide direct sources or data to support these figures, making it difficult to verify without external research.

The claims about the impact of the 'Raise the Age' legislation and bail reform are partially accurate, as these laws have indeed shifted how juvenile offenders are processed. However, the article's tone suggests a direct causation between these laws and increased crime rates, which is a complex issue that may involve multiple factors beyond legislative changes.

The story also discusses the effects of New York's discovery law on prosecution rates, citing specific percentages of misdemeanors and felonies not pursued. While these figures could be accurate, the article lacks direct citations or data sources, limiting the ability to independently verify these claims.

Overall, while the article raises important issues, it lacks the necessary sourcing and evidence to fully substantiate its claims, resulting in a moderate accuracy score.

Balance

The article presents a strong viewpoint against recent criminal justice reforms, emphasizing the negative impacts of these changes on public safety. It argues that these reforms have led to increased crime rates and a lack of accountability for offenders. However, the article does not provide a balanced perspective by including viewpoints from those who support these reforms or discussing potential benefits.

The narrative predominantly focuses on the perceived failures of the reforms without acknowledging the complexities of criminal justice policy or the reasons behind these legislative changes. By not presenting alternative perspectives or the rationale for the reforms, the article lacks balance and may contribute to a one-sided understanding of the issue.

Inclusion of perspectives from reform advocates, legal experts, or data on crime trends in other cities with similar reforms could have provided a more nuanced and balanced view of the topic.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and straightforward manner, making it relatively easy to understand. The language is direct, and the points are presented in a logical sequence, which aids reader comprehension.

However, the article's tone is somewhat alarmist and emotionally charged, which may affect the neutrality of the information presented. While the clarity of the writing is strong, the lack of balanced viewpoints and sourcing affects the overall clarity of the narrative.

Improving the neutrality of the tone and providing more context for the claims made could enhance the clarity of the article for readers seeking an objective understanding of the issue.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or provide data references to support its claims, which undermines the credibility of the information presented. It relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and generalized statements about crime rates and legislative impacts.

The lack of attribution to authoritative sources such as official crime statistics, academic studies, or expert opinions diminishes the reliability of the article. Without clear sourcing, it is challenging to assess the validity of the claims made and whether they are based on credible information.

To improve source quality, the article could have included references to official NYPD crime data, legislative documents, or interviews with experts in criminal justice reform.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its presentation of data and methodology. It does not disclose the sources of its claims or provide context for the statistics mentioned, such as crime rate increases and prosecution declines.

Without clear attribution or explanation of how the data was obtained, readers are left without a clear understanding of the basis for the article's assertions. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence its perspective.

Greater transparency could be achieved by citing sources, explaining the methodology behind the data, and providing context for the legislative changes discussed.