Myth: Getting tough on crime reduces crime.
Fact: States with the toughest law enforcement have the most crime.
Summary
Hiring more police officers and throwing more people into prison
does not reduce crime -- in fact, those states which pursue this strategy
tend to have the highest crime rates. And this is true internationally
as well; the nations with the toughest approach to crime have the most
of it. What are the real causes crime? Scholars lately have been drawn
to two particular explanations: media violence and income inequality.
Argument
THE U.S. EVIDENCE
The statistics below show that spending more on police and prisons
is correlated with a higher crime rate. Before examining these statistics, however,
it is useful to keep
a few points in mind. The first is that correlation is not causation -- just
because a high crime rate accompanies a high police effort does not tell
us which causes which. And, second, one may not cause the other at all.
An example best illustrates this point: it could be said that the more
birds fly south, the more trees change the color of their leaves. Although
this is indeed a correlation, neither causes the other; the real cause
is a third factor, the onset of autumn.
With these points in mind, let's review the possibilities:
1. A greater police effort creates more crime.
2. More crime calls for a greater police effort.
3. A third and unknown causal factor causes both to rise.
If the first scenario is true, then one could imagine a few possible
explanations: police somehow antagonize the community, whether through
police brutality or an "us vs. them" mentality; money is drained
from needed social spending to fund the costs of a greater police presence;
or higher levels of crime have always existed but it takes a greater police
effort to expose it. The last point is quite doubtful, because almost all
crime is reported by victims or witnesses, not discovered by police. These
reports by citizens form our crime statistics. There is little reason to
believe that people's decisions to report crime are based on the size of
the police force.
If the second scenario is true, then one must ask why the greater police
response isn't solving crime. For example, Florida's crime rate is three times
higher than West Virginia's. It also spends three times more per capita
trying to fight crime. Unfortunately, Florida's greater effort has been
going on for decades, with no relative reduction in crime whatsoever. This
would suggest that the effort is ineffective. Or if it is indeed effective
(but is merely fighting a losing battle), then this takes us to the next point:
If the third scenario is true, then society's attention should not
be focused on greater law enforcement, but on the identification of the
social cause responsible for crime. If Florida reduced its police budget
to West Virginia's level, crime could conceivably rise from three times
worse to six times worse… which suggests that Florida's social problems
must be even worse than current crime statistics would suggest.
What might these social causes be? Criminologists have put forward
a variety of theories: drugs, poverty, America's greater access to guns,
broken homes, lack of moral instruction, etc. The statistics do not show
a strong correlation to any of these causes, however, and the ultimate
cause of crime remains debatable. It may even be a combination of all of
the above.
Be that as it may, two culprits have been receiving increasing attention
by scholars lately. The first is media violence. Dr. Brandon Centerwall
has produced one of the most famous studies, which found that the mere
introduction of television into a region causes its crime rate to double
as soon as the first television generation comes of age. (1) In a
22-year study of 800 children from grade 2 to early
adulthood, Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann found that the
best predictor of later aggression was a heavy childhood diet of
TV violence -- more so than poverty, grades, a single parent in the
home or exposure to real violence. (2)
The second is income inequality. Although absolute poverty levels do
not correlate too significantly with the crime rate (see chart below), income inequality
does, strangely enough. Two separate studies, one from Harvard, the other
from Berkeley, compared state crime rates to their income inequality rates,
and found that the states with the most inequality had the highest rates
of homicide, violent crime and incarceration. The reason why is still being
explored, but potential explanations include psychological reasons, and
the fact that prices of needed goods and services are relative too, even
in a rich country. (3)
Regardless of the cause, the following statistics show that getting
tough on crime is not a successful policy. The charts below list each state
in order of its crime rate and then lists its law-enforcement expenditures,
prison population rate, poverty rate and high school dropout rate. The
first chart gives the raw data. The second chart is the same as the first,
except that it gives a state's ranking instead of the raw data. This is
to help find the correlation between states. Further analysis of these
charts follows below.
Column 1 - CRIME: Crime rate per 100,000 population. Includes
murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft,
motor vehicle theft. (4)
Column 2 - POLICE: State and local police protection and correction-employment
expenditures, in dollars per capita. (5)
Column 3 - PRISON: Number of Federal and State Prisoners per
100,000 of state population. (6)
Column 4 - POVERTY: State poverty rate. (7)
Column 5 - HS DROPOUTS: State high school dropout rate. Comprises
percentage of current 16-19 year olds who are not in school and have not
finished the 12th grade or received a general equivalency degree.
(8)
CHART ONE
Crime-related statistics by state, raw data:
Crime Police Prison Poverty HS Dropout
Florida 8,358 $382 369 15.3% 14.3%
Texas 7,058 260 381 17.8 12.9
Arizona 7,029 366 415 15.1 14.4
California 6,679 454 355 15.8 14.2
Louisiana 6,546 256 505 24.2 12.5
New Mexico 6,434 293 205 21.0 11.7
Georgia 6,405 267 382 17.8 14.1
Maryland 6,225 348 385 11.6 10.9
Nevada 6,204 454 457 14.4 15.2
Washington 6,173 327 197 11.0 10.6
Hawaii 6,112 352 168 11.0 7.5
Colorado 5,959 303 258 10.6 9.8
South Carolina 5,893 241 489 18.9 7.7
New York 5,858 497 351 15.3 9.9
Oregon 5,821 286 172 11.3 11.8
North Carolina 5,802 235 295 15.7 12.5
Illinois 5,765 280 282 15.3 10.6
Utah 5,659 219 152 9.3 8.7
Michigan 5,611 316 420 13.5 10.0
Alaska 5,570 623 320 10.0 10.9
Oklahoma 5,432 194 483 18.4 10.4
Kansas 5,320 240 244 11.0 8.7
Alabama 5,268 199 426 17.1 12.6
Tennessee 5,136 226 247 17.0 13.4
Missouri 5,097 136 315 15.6 11.4
New Jersey 5,064 369 292 10.0 9.6
Connecticut 5,053 333 275 9.4 9.0
Massachusetts 5,003 297 16 10.0 8.5
Indiana 4,687 181 246 11.7 11.4
Ohio 4,666 262 359 12.4 8.9
Minnesota 4,591 241 90 12.8 6.4
Montana 4,596 210 175 13.7 8.1
Rhode Island 4,578 302 167 12.0 11.1
Delaware 4,848 375 392 7.6 10.4
Arkansas 4,762 153 344 17.4 11.4
Wyoming 4,575 319 223 10.3 6.9
Nebraska 4,324 194 153 10.3 7.0
Wisconsin 4,319 294 175 10.8 7.1
Virginia 4,299 266 335 9.4 10.0
Mississippi 4,282 136 356 24.5 11.8
Idaho 3,996 220 199 15.0 10.4
Iowa 3,957 161 166 11.3 6.6
Maine 3,524 201 11 13.4 8.3
Vermont 3,410 207 152 10.4 8.0
Pennsylvania 3,393 245 212 11.7 9.1
Kentucky 3,324 192 277 19.7 13.3
New Hampshire 3,081 241 158 8.6 9.4
South Dakota 2,999 170 214 14.8 7.7
North Dakota 2,903 155 69 11.9 4.6
West Virginia 2,610 117 102 22.3 10.9
CHART TWO
State rankings of crime-related statistics: (t = tie)
Crime Police Prison Poverty HS Dropout
Florida 1 5 12 16(t) 3
Texas 2 25 11 8(t) 8
Arizona 3 8 7 19 2
California 4 4 15 13 4
Louisiana 5 26 1 2 10(t)
New Mexico 6 19 33 4 14
Georgia 7 22 10 8(t) 5
Maryland 8 10 9 32(t) 19(t)
Nevada 9 3 4 22 1
Washington 10 12 35 35(t) 22(t)
Hawaii 11 9 39 35(t) 44
Colorado 12 15 26 39 30
South Carolina 13 28(t) 2 6 42t
New York 14 2 16 16(t) 29
Oregon 15 20 38 33(t) 12(t)
North Carolina 16 32 21 14 10t
Illinois 17 21 23 16(t) 22(t)
Utah 18 35 44(t) 46 36(t)
Michigan 19 14 6 24 27(t)
Alaska 20 1 19 43(t) 19(t)
Oklahoma 21 40(t) 3 7 24(t)
Kansas 22 31 29 35(t) 36(t)
Alabama 23 39 5 11 9
Tennessee 24 33 27 12 6
Missouri 25 48 20 15 15(t)
New Jersey 26 6 22 43(t) 31
Connecticut 27 11 25 46(t) 34
Massachusetts 28 17 49 43(t) 38
Indiana 29 43 28 30(t) 15(t)
Ohio 30 24 13 27 35
Minnesota 31 28(t) 47 26 49
Montana 32 36 36(t) 23 40
Rhode Island 33 16 40 28 18
Delaware 34 6 8 50 24(t)
Arkansas 35 47 17 10 15(t)
Wyoming 36 13 30 41(t) 47
Nebraska 37 40(t) 43 41(t) 46
Wisconsin 38 18 36(t) 38 45
Virginia 39 23 18 46(t) 27(t)
Mississippi 40 49 14 1 12(t)
Idaho 41 34 34 20 24(t)
Iowa 42 45 41 33(t) 48
Maine 43 38 50 25 39
Vermont 44 37 44(t) 40 41
Pennsylvania 45 27 32 30(t) 33
Kentucky 46 42 24 5 7
New Hampshire 47 28(t) 42 49 32
South Dakota 48 44 31 21 42t
North Dakota 49 46 48 29 50
West Virginia 50 50 46 3 19(t)
------------------------------------------------------
Correlation .59 .55 .25 .51
to crime (9)
So crime is significantly correlated to police and corrections spending,
incarceration rates and high-school dropout rates. Surprisingly enough,
the correlation between poverty and crime is not too significant. However,
as mentioned above, Harvard and Berkeley have found that income inequality
correlates much more strongly with crime than poverty. In fact, these studies
find that income inequality correlates with most of the nation's social
problems.
THE INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE
The U.S. is the most violent society in the industrialized world,
and probably the entire world as well. Although it doesn't have the most
police per capita, the U.S. does have the toughest laws and punishments
by far. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is becoming
much less relevant as time passes; the U.S. has been following this "get
tough" approach for decades, with no significant reduction of its
violent crime rate.
All the following statistics are for 1991, and come from the international
encyclopedia Where We Stand. (10)
People per police officer
Italy 286
Greece 303
Sweden 328
Canada 358
United Kingdom 400
United States 459
Australia 462
Austria 466
Ireland 489
Netherlands 553
Japan 556
Belgium 586
Denmark 594
Portugal 624
France 632
Finland 643
Norway 661
Spain 862
Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)
United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7
Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
France 0.8
Austria 0.8
Spain 0.8
Switzerland 0.7
Denmark 0.7
Belgium 0.7
Italy 0.6
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4
Death row inmates
United States 2,124
Japan 38
All others 0
Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
France 4.60
Portugal 4.50
Australia 4.48
Germany 4.20
Belgium 2.80
Spain 2.28
Switzerland 2.25
Italy 2.18
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Austria 1.80
Greece 1.76
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Ireland 0.96
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people)
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5
Rape (per 100,000 people)
United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
France 6.77
Switzerland 6.15
Luxembourg 5.00
Spain 4.43
Austria 4.40
Belgium 4.00
Greece 2.40
Ireland 1.72
Japan 1.40
Portugal 1.20
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
Spain 265
United States 221
Canada 94
France 90
Belgium 66
United Kingdom 63
Italy 50
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Ireland 46
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Switzerland 23
Norway 22
Greece 7
Japan 1
Auto Theft (per 100,000 people)
Sweden 714
Denmark 700
Norway 665
United Kingdom 624
United States 583
France 420
Italy 364
Spain 356
Canada 344
Finland 247
Belgium 201
Germany 114
Greece 58
Ireland 30
Japan 28
Breaking and entering (per 100,000 people)
Denmark 2,412
Australia 1,962
Germany 1,918
United Kingdom 1,627
Sweden 1,555
Canada 1,386
United States 1,309
Spain 1,232
Finland 1,008
Luxembourg 984
Switzerland 976
Austria 910
Ireland 855
France 674
Belgium 623
Greece 257
Japan 211
Norway 93
Some may object that international comparisons are like apples and
oranges. However, that objection misses the point: if the many social differences
of these nations contribute to a lower crime rate, Americans should consider
adopting these social policies for themselves. Almost universally, these
other nations have abolished the death penalty, practice gun control, and
feature less police brutality and more liberal courts. On a less crime-related
basis, these other nations also have greater social benefits, less inequality
of wealth, larger public sectors and more democratic participation.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. Brandon S. Centerwall, "Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor
for Violence", American Journal of Epidemiology, (Vol. 129,
1989), pp. 643-652.
2. Rowell Huesmann and Leonard Eron, eds.,
Television and the Aggressive Child: A Cross-National Comparison,
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986).
3. Crime correlations with inequality found in George A. Kaplan
and others, "Inequality in income and mortality in the United States:
analysis of mortality and potential
pathways," British Medical Journal, Vol. 312 (April 20,
1996), pgs. 999-1003. For a related study correlating inequality to mortality
rates, see Bruce P. Kennedy and others, "Income distribution and mortality:
cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United
States," British Medical Journal, Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996),
pgs. 1004-1007.
4. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States,
1992.
5. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF,
No. 5, 1992.
6. Bureau of Justice Statistics, mid-year, 1993.
7. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-188,
1992.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population, CPH-L-96.
9. Spearman correlation of ranks:
Crime/police:
p (chance that r=0 coincidentally) = 5.9865e-06
ts (t statistics) = 5.0872
df (degrees of freedom n-2) = 48
r (correlation) = 0.59186
Crime/prison:
p = 3.6456e-05
ts = 4.5513
df = 48
r = 0.54905
Crime/poverty:
p = 0.077641
ts = 1.8032
df = 48
r = 0.25187
Crime/HS dropout:
p = 0.00013006
ts = 4.1620
df = 48
r = 0.51496
10. Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten & Albert
F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books,
1992), pp. 289-297.