Committing a crime always carries some risk of getting caught, and that risk is precisely what makes punishment meaningful and gives its severity any real weight. Offenders, in a real sense, run the numbers before they act – not always consciously, in the way a shopper doesn’t consciously recalculate value every time they pick a cheap restaurant over an expensive one, having long since built the habit of finding the best deal without thinking hard about it. Criminals weigh motive and cost in much the same automatic way.
Motivation, or the lack of it, doesn’t affect everyone equally, and legal deterrence works differently depending on how motivated an offender already is. For people with little inclination toward crime in the first place, the threat of punishment usually does its job just fine. For people already prone to offending, that same threat carries far less weight – especially where sentences and legal restrictions are set so low that they barely register as a deterrent at all.
Many countries with weak justice systems hand down light sentences that simply aren’t enough to change anyone’s calculation. Were the system more effective, more people would likely be talked out of crime by the numbers alone. In the American system, the odds that a given crime actually ends in punishment are low enough that the risk barely factors into a motivated offender’s decision – the danger just isn’t large enough in their mind to outweigh the expected payoff. That same danger, though, is exactly what keeps a much larger number of people who would never seriously consider a life of crime firmly on the right side of the law, simply because they’ve done that math and decided it isn’t worth it. Relatively few people weigh the risk seriously enough to talk themselves out of a crime they were genuinely tempted to commit – but improving the justice system’s reliability could change that calculation considerably. According to Morgan Reynolds’ book Crime by Choice, raising the certainty and severity of punishment by even a modest amount – on the order of five percent – could in principle cut the crime rate by roughly half. As Reynolds puts it: “There is real evidence that offenders are conscious of their own actions and take full responsibility for the choices behind them – they weigh their options and freely choose crime as one of them. Raise the risk of arrest and the severity of the sentence, and the odds of that crime happening fall automatically.” He adds a smaller, related point: ending unusually lenient treatment for juvenile offenders, and hearing their cases in the same courts that handle adult offenders, would on its own reduce the crime rate somewhat.
So Does That Mean Just Build More Prisons?
Not quite – and this is where the case for tougher sentencing runs into a serious complication. The criminologist Don C. Gibbons has reviewed the standard menu of crime-prevention proposals and finds himself unconvinced that most of them actually work, particularly as they’ve played out in the United States, where the results have consistently fallen short of what was promised. The intended goal was for the American justice system – through prisons, arrests, and a growing count of defendants – to strengthen the arguments in favor of exactly this approach. Instead, the numbers largely fail to back it up.
Advocates of tougher law-and-order policies tend to favor these traditional measures, and Japan is a frequent counterexample raised against them. Japan has notably low crime, but not because its formal justice and policing systems lean unusually hard on punishment – if anything, Japanese society relies less on strict legal deterrence than many Western countries. Experience there suggests instead that strong, cohesive family and community ties do far more of the actual work. In Japan, informal social bonds are strong and effective where they matter, but where those elements are missing – a society more fragmented, with people made strangers to one another – that gap takes on outsized importance. This one example makes the case clearly: no society, and the United States in particular, can afford to rely on strengthening informal social controls as its entire strategy while leaving police and government responsibility for enforcement behind. But it’s equally clear that leaning only on police and government enforcement, while neglecting those informal social bonds, isn’t a workable substitute either.
Two Rival Philosophies
Historically, societies have swung between two very different approaches to controlling crime. The first, most popular in nineteenth-century England, was built almost entirely around fear: strike terror into the hearts of would-be offenders through harsh, visible punishment – branding, transportation to penal colonies, corporal punishment – and cleanse society of crime through the threat of severe consequences. Some people object to reviving this approach, though rarely with the same intensity reserved for its most brutal historical form, the punitive machinery of the old Soviet system. Even reform-minded critics of this approach generally accept that its core aim – using the law to instill real deterrence – shouldn’t simply be abandoned.
The second approach treats offenders more like patients: crime as a symptom of something wrong in society, and society itself as bearing real responsibility for treating it. This view focuses attention on rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into the community, on the theory that aggressive, law-defying behavior declines as that reintegration succeeds.
Both camps have their skeptics. Critics on the right dismiss most existing crime-prevention spending as wasted money, arguing there’s little evidence it actually reduces crime. Critics on the left ask an equally pointed question: what exactly do we accomplish by locking people up, if incarceration on its own doesn’t meaningfully control crime either?
So how do you actually bring crime under control? Most people’s instinct is that it’s simply a matter of spending more – bigger budgets, higher taxes, more enforcement. Ongoing research keeps complicating that assumption, and most criminologists now agree that this kind of spending, on its own, produces only a modest reduction in crime. The countries making real, sustained progress on crime tend to be pursuing something broader – combinations of policy that are as much political and ideological as they are purely punitive. Genuine economic and social reform, more than any single crime-fighting budget line, remains the strongest hope for meaningful, lasting change.
No Comments