I still mostly disagree, but I think part of it is some confusion over what is meant. You're talking about reducing the number of people wanting/needing to commit crimes through social investments, which is valid - I think the ways NYC tries to improve socioeconomic conditions are usually counterproductive, but obviously it is the larger context of most crime.
What I'm talking about is direct prevention of crime AKA once somebody has begun contemplating or planning a crime, who or what will stop them or mitigate the damage? We don't want an omnipresent police state, though we do have predictive data like long history of crimes and neighborhood statistics that can guide security. Still, you can never hire police to cover every block, and most crime can't be directly prevented by police or security.