I find the excerpt (below) interesting in that it fits what is happening here. We have a crime problem that feels out of control. Police are working overtime in an attempt to reign in crime. Courts cannot keep up with arrests, and jails are over full.
People want Police to be more active, work more overtime, prevent crime, and arrest more people. In the mean time, arrested suspect criminals enjoy having their cases dropped because courts are overloaded. For those who are incarcerated, other criminals are being let out of jail as they are not “violent enough” as there are not enough cells for everyone.
I thought until I read this excerpt, Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Phoenix area had it right. Make jail time so miserable that no-one will wish to go to jail a second time. No doubt Sheriff Arpio’s jail kept repeat offenders from offending again, or at least they became smarter about committing crime.
Maybe there is a way to manage crime and criminals better? I know Detroit, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois to name a few cities, are having major crime issues of their with no hope of crime reduction on the horizon. Honest work is a better solution, but jobs are needed for people to have honest work that is both meaningful and supports their families.
Below is what I read. I hope the excerpt has merits for you and your city if you are suffering these same issues. I know Detroit, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois are having serious crime issues with no hope of reducing crime on the horizon. Maybe this excerpt will help city officials make more informed decisions.
I did not use quotes for the excerpted text; I have no claim to typing and transcribing skills and may have misquoted the original text.
Economics of Social Issues, Twenty-First Edition, Charles A. Register & Paul W. Grimes, Authors, McGraw Hill publisher
Paragraph 3: ‘…equimarginal principle. The crime budget should be allocated among police, courts, and corrections so the last dollar spent on any facet yields the the same addition to the benefits of crime prevention as the last dollar spent on the others….’
‘As an example, suppose the crime prevention system is relatively over-loaded in the area of detection and apprehension. The courts cannot handle all those being arrested, so many of them must be set free without trial, or in the case of plea bargaining, sentenced for a lesser crime than the one committed. The mere fact of arrest will have some crime-deterring effects, but the deterrent effect will be much less than it would be were there adequate court facilities to try the persons apprehended. The contribution of crime prevention of an additional dollar’s worth of police activity at this point is low. On the other hand, an expansion of court facilities would increase the likelihood of speedy trail and conviction of those apprehended. We would expect crime-deterring effect of a dollar’s worth of such an expansion to be greater than that of a dollar spent on detection, apprehension, and subsequent freeing of those apprehended. Suppose that taking $1 away from police work brings about enough of a crime increase to cause a 75-cent loss in GDP to society. Now suppose that court activity is increased by $1, and the increased activity deters criminal activity enough to make society better off by $3. Under these circumstances, society will experience a net gain of $2.25 in GDP by a transfer from police activities to court activities. Such net gains are possible for any dollar transfer among police activities, and corrections activities when the marginal social benefit of $1 spent on any one activity equal the marginal social benefit of $1 spent on any one of the other activities.’