Crime is morally and materially costly. It endangers the social order, affronts society, and arouses fear, which diminishes the tranquility and the freedom to which citizens are entitled. Violence, so often part of crime, is harmful morally and materially. Property crimes unjustly transfer wealth from victims to criminals. The risk of such involuntary transfers is costly and the illegal transfers themselves often are destructive as well. Not least, the cost of law enforcement and of private protection necessitated by crime must be added to the cost of crime. Although some recent practices seem to suggest otherwise, restitution to the victim cannot offset these social costs, let alone discharge the penal liabilities of criminals. Restitution at most discharges the civil debt owed by the offender to the victim.
Crime rates have long been much higher in America than in Europe. Many causes have been alleged. Perhaps heterogeneity, pluralism, federalism, liberty, or demographic factors explain part of the difference. But learning as much is not helpful since we can or will not give up any of these. Genetic, social, or psychological causes of crime, such as low intelligence, broken families, or parental mistreatment, are not likely either to be much affected by any remedies society can devise. Finally, although still favored by presidential commissions, poverty, inequality, and bad housing have been discredited as causes of crime.
Consider poverty. America is the world's wealthiest major country. It also has one of the world's highest crime rates-a crime rate higher in prosperity than in depression and which rises "with increases in median family income." There is inequality. But no correlation has ever been demonstrated between crime rates and inequality or, for the matter, lack of public housing. Reducing inequality may be worthwhile per se. But even if, despite differences in effort and ability, we all received the same income--hardly a realistic prospect-- some of us would spend income on receipt, or possibly before, and others would save a portion. Enough inequality would remain to motivate robbers or burglars. Anyway, for all we know, they may victimize equals as well, or those who are poorer than they are.
Little can be done about these alleged causes of crime. They are of but academic interest to anyone who wants to reduce crime rather than use it as a pretext for whatever social reforms he favors. Hence, the sanctions of the criminal justice system are theonly realistic hope we have for controlling the crime rate.
Attempts by the criminal justice system to strengthen sanctions are costly. They require politically difficult reforms: more prison space may be needed too. However, in the long run, the inmate population need not increase. If prospective criminals can be deterred by punishing more actual criminals severally, ultimately fewer, rather than more, prison cells will be needed. There would be fewer criminals, although a greater proportion would be imprisoned. Reformers who try to discourage the public from strengthening sanctions by pointing to the additional prison space needed, totally disregard the deterrent effect of imprisonment, the ultimate reduction of the crime rate.
At present, the cost of better crime control is likely to be less than the cost of uncontrolled crime. However, the cost of crime is mainly borne by the victims. The cost of controlling crime is
...
Read Full Article
|
