For years, we’ve assumed that increased penalties can deter criminals and reduce crime.  It’s not a new idea, but it took hold in the 1980s and politicians started increasing the prison time for various crimes.  Today, we’re looking at the result of these “get tough on crime” statutes.  We see that our jails are packed—more than almost any other country in the world.  It not only ruins lives (including the families of the inmates when they aren’t supporting their families), but it also costs the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Here’s an recent essay that casts some light on the problem  It’s a little long, so hang in there.

http://www.startribune.com/increasing-the-cost-of-crime-doesn-t-make-us-safer/370334841/

The author makes some interesting points:

—He starts by comparing our response to crime to being a parent.  When our child misbehaves, we “punish” them by time-outs, staying in their rooms, not being able to play with friends, etc.  But at some point, we realize that endless punishment doesn’t do any more good.  We relent and let them go out to play when we decide they’ve “learned their lesson.”  It’s just the opposite for criminals: we keep them in prison far longer than it takes to get them to “learn their lesson.”

—Some people say: if they’re behind bars it keeps criminals off the streets.  That is a great point if the criminal is truly dangerous.  About half the people in prison now are there for non-violent offenses.  Is this really helping in our fight against crime?

—The author takes us through some of the new, specialty courts that are working great.  An good example is “drug court.”  Instead of throwing drug offenders in jail for years, many states use a “drug court.”  The defendant is put on probation and closely monitored through treatment and rehab until they are cured and can be productive again.  Often, if they’re successful on probation, they won’t even get a permanent felony record.

In our fight against crime, we are seeing several success stories.  This is just one of them.

The post What’s Working in our Fight Against Crime appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

After working over 30 years in the criminal justice system, I’ve got a few ideas of my own.  (Admittedly, not based on much scientific data.)

1.  Demographics.  During the late 80’s and early 90’s the courts were packed and crime was up.  Minneapolis was called “Murderapolis.”  Most crime is committed by younger people and continues up into their late twenties.  The young criminal population from the 80’s and 90’s simply aged out.  The generation that followed was smaller and thus, had fewer criminals.

2.  Prisons.  For those serious criminals who didn’t age out and continued to offend, prison incarceration took them out of circulation.  Statistics show that the  U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other country in the world.  (Liptak, Adam, “1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars,” New York Times, 2/28/08)  I don’t think long incarceration does much to rehabilitate criminals, but it certainly gets them off the streets and may therefore, reduce crime levels.

3.  Better Law Enforcement.  Since the 80’s, a variety of new policing techniques have worked to reduce crime.  Some are technological (DNA testing to identify correct suspects) and others are sociological.  (Closer working relationships between police and the community.)

4.  Decriminalization.  Since the 80’s, several crimes have been either decriminalized (such as Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana) or have been significantly ignored in arrests and prosecution.  I remember int he 80’s representing dozens of female prostitutes who had been arrested and charged with Soliciting.  Today, only the most blatant prostitutes are arrested.  Instead, the johns are sometimes targeted for arrest.  All of this has the effect of reducing the number of crimes reported.

What do you think?  In your opinion, why is crime down?  Will the Holiday Gift last?

The post A Holiday Gift–Crime is Down appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.