STRICT ENFORCEMENT AND LONG PRISON SENTENCES WORK TO KEEP CRIMINALS OFF THE STREETS

While some of the crime reduction stats have probably been manipulated and inflated, I’ve always believed that aggressive law enforcement and harsh sentences serve to put criminals behind bars and keep them off the streets.

Here is an interesting op-ed by Mark A. Stelter, a professor of criminal justice at Lone Star College-Montgomery, Texas.

ENFORCEMENT IS BEHIND THE SHARP DROP IN CRIME
By Mark A. Stelter

Houston Chronicle
January 13, 2011

The dramatic decrease in crime is one of the most significant events in our nation's history ("Homicides in Houston take tumble," Page A1, Jan. 1). If the murder rate had remained what it was in 1991, there would have been 600 more murders in Houston last year and an additional 13,000 murders nationwide. This unprecedented drop in homicide has saved more than 100,000 lives since 1991. How did this happen? Surprisingly enough, the consensus among criminal justice experts seems to be: We don't know. But while we may not agree upon the precise causes, we have learned much.

Immediately prior to the great crime decline that began in the 1990s, the vast majority of criminologists predicted a crime increase. Most experts were convinced that crime would not drop until other social maladies were cured, such as poverty and racism. Most academics scoffed at the idea that tougher penalties (such as three-strikes-and-you're-out laws) and stricter enforcement (such as zero-tolerance policies) would reduce crime.

While no one factor explains the dramatic crime decrease, it turns out that the very things scholars believed caused crime (poverty, racism, inadequate education) seem generally unrelated to crime rates, and the very things most scholars ridiculed (tougher sentencing, more effective policing) seem to be among the things that actually work to reduce crime.

When nearly all the professional thinkers in the field so badly miss the mark, it should teach us to be wary of placing too much faith in self-appointed social engineers.

While there is no one reason crime rates fell, the best candidates are the solutions offered by our mothers and not the solutions suggested by scholars. Our great crime decline has generally refuted the supposedly sophisticated view that crime is caused by social problems, ranging from bad schools to unequal distribution of wealth, and has generally supported the more common and obvious view that crime will drop if we rigorously enforce the laws and keep criminals in prison longer. The great crime decline correlates almost perfectly with laws designed to take criminals off the streets and keep them in prison longer. While this common-sense approach may seem obvious, it was anathema to most of the liberal academic establishment - and still is - in spite of strong evidence that it works.

The incredible decrease in crime did not just happen. The steps taken to reduce crime were vigorously championed by such people as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Reagan's crime czar, James Q. Wilson. These men fought against the status quo and their views have been vindicated. The lesson is that some things work.

When we find things that actually work, whether these solutions are liberal or conservative, we should put aside our ideological beliefs and embrace those programs. Doing so has enormous consequences. In the case of crime policy, there are more than 100,000 people who are alive today who would have been dead if we continued the failed policies of the past.