Crime and alternatives to Punishment

The Economist writes:

Although the general call for "defunding" risks a backlash, the details of redirecting part of the police budget to arms of local government, such as housing or mental health, may make sense. The power of protest and the legacy of George Floyd, the 'Economist' dated 13 June

Right. The best way of dealing with crime, is not necessarily to give more money to the police, or to imprison more people, or to impose more drastic punishments. By 'to deal with crime' I mean: to reduce the crime rate. That is a goal that, I think, most of us can agree on. Other supposed goals are nothing more than surrogate indicators, or the product of sorrow, or anger, or revenge psychology. But if we accept that our goal is to reduce the crime rate, and admit the truth: that we don't have a clue how best to do so...well that is a good starting point.

We don't have a clue because the causes of crime vary from place to place, from person to person, from time to time. The best way of reducing crime in some small town might be to subsidise small businesses - which might be a lot cheaper and less divisive than beefing up the local police force. In another area, at a different time, the most efficient way of reducing crime might be to install surveillance cameras, or lay on free taxis for youths leaving nightclubs, or provide talking therapies rather than antipsychotic medication.... The problem we have is not only that the causes of crime are too complex and dynamic for any single organisation to address. It's that there is no incentive for anybody to take such a broad approach. Everybody—politicians, the police, psychiatrists—has their own agenda. Well meaning, hard working these people may be, but they are not rewarded for their success in dealing with a major social problem. It's far too complicated for any single organisation to deal with. We need diverse, adaptive approaches.

My suggestion is that we apply the Social Policy Bond concept to crime. A short essay on how to do this appears here. The paradigm fits other social and environmental problems. The first task is to clarify and articulate exactly what outcome we are looking to achieve. Because we are not concerned with how our goals shall be achieved, nor with who shall achieve them, we can target long-term goals that have eluded past efforts at achieving them, such as world peace or universal literacy or, indeed, reduced crime rates. The role of government would be to articulate society's goals and raise the revenue to achieve them. But the actual achievement of complex social goals should be done by a coalition of people who are motivated to find the most efficient solution, regardless of how many vested interests they have to undermine to do so. And that is where Social Policy Bonds enter the picture.

To read more, please go to the Social Policy Bonds site. All my papers and book chapters are available there and can be downloaded for no charge.