The Dec. 26 editorial “What about the victims?” was right when it concluded “we’ve heard a lot about offenders, we haven’t heard enough about victims.” But it was wrong in its assumption about what victims want.

As the United States begins to correct the long-standing damages of mass incarceration, resistance is expressed in the name of victims. But this pushback is not reflective of what most victims want. Crime survivors have perhaps paid the greatest price for the failures of mass incarceration. Survivors want safety, but many survivors do not believe prison will deliver that safety. A 2016 survey by the Alliance for Safety and Justice found that about 70 percent of survivors prefer alternatives to prison such as community supervision and treatment. At Common Justice, an alternative-to-incarceration program for serious violent felonies, a full 90 percent of survivors given the choice between seeing the people who hurt them incarcerated or held accountable differently choose our program.

The evidence is on these survivors’ side. New York has reduced violent crime by more than half over the past 30 years and has reduced incarceration by more than half. Less prison and more safety can and do go hand in hand.

As someone who has survived violence, including rape, and as someone who has lost people I love to murder, I join other crime survivors in an urgent call to abandon “tough on crime” rhetoric and to embrace the kinds of solutions that have been proved to keep us safe in ways prison cannot.

Danielle Sered, New York

The writer is executive director of Common Justice.