On Tuesday, Heather Somers, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, stood in front of a New London courthouse to denounce the state's Risk Reduction Earned Credit program that allows inmates to earn their way out of prison early.

Ms. Somers, a Groton resident and Tom Foley's running mate, stood beside poster boards with long lists of names - the 21,000 prisoners released under the program since its 2011 enactment, according to the Foley-Somers campaign. The message, it appeared, was "be afraid, be very afraid - and vote Republican."

Indeed, if the state is emptying its prisons at that rate with people who remain a big threat to society, Connecticut must certainly be experiencing an unprecedented crime wave. Except, it's not.

In 2013, there were 86 murders in Connecticut, a 32 percent reduction from 2011, when the early release program began. It is the lowest number of murders since the 86 in 1969.

The FBI reports that "Index Crimes" - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, car theft and arson - dropped 11.2 percent in the state between 2008 and 2012, the most recent years for which final numbers are available.

The total number of Connecticut arrests for all crimes is also trending down, dropping 23.7 percent between 2009 and 2013. Recidivism rates dropped 7 percent from 2007 to 2013.

These reflect trends seen nationally.

The intent of the Risk Reduction Earned Credit program is to provide inmates with incentives to prepare themselves for post-prison life and reduce the chances of their returning. Opportunities include anger management counseling, furthering education or training, or participating in sex offender treatment, when appropriate. Inmates can earn a maximum reduction of five days per month. Those convicted of murder, aggravated sexual assault and home invasions are not eligible to take part.

It is fair to debate eligibility requirements for the program. Perhaps the legislature should expand the types of violent crimes that make an inmate ineligible. And the legislature should demand that the administration periodically demonstrate the program's effectiveness.

But to simply play the fright card, suggesting that the program has made citizens less safe, is not supported by the facts and does not invite good public policy.

As one prominent political observer recently noted, the United States is jailing an awful lot of people and it is very expensive.

"More than 2 million Americans are in prison or jail and 5 million are under court supervision through parole or probation - and while America has 5 percent of the world's population, we host 25 percent of the world's prison inmates. There are too many laws on the books, too many 'crimes' and too many Americans in prison for too long."

What bleeding heart wrote that for the Huffington Post this past June? That would be Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. He is the ultra-conservative who gets politicians to sign pledges never to support tax increases.

As Mr. Norquist and a growing number of conservatives recognize, it makes good fiscal and societal sense to find a way to reduce prison populations and cut down on recidivism, but without undue risk to society.

The facts are that on average Connecticut prisoners are serving more of their sentences than they were a few years ago. Back in 2008 some violent-crime offenders were serving as little as 59 percent of their original sentences, a report determined. The 2008 review of prison sentences followed the triple-murder home invasion in Cheshire in 2007. Reforms, passed in the wake of that horrific crime by two ex-inmates, mandated that those convicted of violent crimes had to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, a requirement the early release program must abide by.

Even with the best program, many ex-cons earning early release will violate the law again, some in acts of violence that shock society. As terrible as those cases are - and devastating for victims and their families - it does not mean the program is a failure. The facts show the program is not the dangerous disaster the Foley-Somers campaign would lead voters to believe.