Beau’s lingering concerns with the ability of dynamic concentration to reduce Crime rather than reduce the incidence of a particular kind of crime are well taken, but I think ultimately misguided. He assumes a dedication to criminality that I don’t think the evidence supports in most cases. That, for instance, is why employment programs for reentering prisoners are really good ideas. Still, even the people that one would assume are the most “dedicated” to a criminal lifestyle – hardcore drug addicts – respond very well to dynamic concentration. In Hawai’i, where Project HOPE utilizes a form of dynamic concentration in the probation system, drug addicts are warned that they will be subject to weekly drug tests with 24 hours notice and that violation will result in an immediate but brief period of incarceration (starting at 2 days and increasing with every violation).
Even these hardcore drug users responded. Roughly half stopped using after the warning alone. Over the course of a few months, HOPE reduces the level of drug use by 90% while probationers not in HOPE actually use more drugs than before they started probation. (When Brute Force Fails, p. 40). Additionally, while HOPE’s primary focus is on drug testing (that is, it’s enforcement concentration is drug enforcement), HOPE participants are rearrested on other charges (including non-drug charges) half as often as non-participants and for less serious crimes. (Ibid.) That is to say, rather than causing criminals to substitute one form of criminal behavior for another one that is not being targeted, consistent enforcement of one rule results in a positive feedback loop that actually reduces lots of other kinds of crime.
Now, I can imagine someone positing that this phenomenon is limited to drug enforcement – arguing that the consequent crime reduction is the result of fewer drug addicts committing other crimes to support their habit. I suppose that could be true, but a) wouldn’t focusing enforcement resources on drug crime be a good way to bring down overall crime rates?, and b) why not simply focus on a geographic area rather than on a particular kind of crime? As I noted in my last post, most crime is local. If you focus on geographic areas rather than types of crime, you are still going to get the benefit of concentrated resources, but the opportunity to substitute one type of crime for another is gone. It doesn’t matter whether you rob a bank or deal drugs, the heat is going to be on. Most criminals won’t go very far to commit a crime because most of the time they can’t. If you live in Watts and don’t have a car, it’s going to be pretty difficult to rob a bank in Westwood and then hop on a bus back home.
Additionally, targeting crime in terms of geography will have the added benefit of creating a positive feedback loop. As crime levels drop, you will have fewer first-time felons which will mean fewer people with felony convictions trying to pass employer background checks (read, more economic opportunity). You will also have safer streets which will make it a whole lot easier for small business to successfully operate since people will be less afraid to walk to a local restaurant for dinner. Reducing crime can actually reduce the likelihood of a criminal resurgence (in economic terms, you can create a low-crime equilibrium). Focusing resources regionally, then, can address Beau’s substitution problem without any additional cost.
It also just so happens that if one prioritizes enforcement resources in terms of specific gangs, one will simultaneously be focusing resources geographically since gangs have “turfs” where they operate. In fact, the phenomenon of gang “turf” makes geographic substitution less likely than in a normal case. Even if a gang member from the Bloodstone Villians (a Bloods crew) had sufficient transportation to commit a crime in 53 Avalon Gangster Crip territory, it is really unlikely that he would because he’s probably afraid of getting killed (either during the course of the crime or later on as retribution).
The real substitution that I think is likely to happen with dynamic concentration is a transition from illicit to licit activity. The best way to permanently break the grip of gang crime in the inner city is to create jobs. The best way create jobs in the inner-city is to reduce crime. And all the evidence I’ve seen suggests that the best way to reduce crime is dynamic concentration. Still, I remain open to any evidence of a more effective solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment