Crime and Punishment

I can't help it. Politics rules the airwaves and I feel like screaming. I have to blog more about this stuff before my head explodes. So at the risk of people starting to say That Jude is turning into a raving lefty...

Here's a question I'd like to see policians asked more often: How?

How will what you propose have the effect you want it to have? How will your policies make a difference?

Take crime - always a good sound bite and photo op issue. What do we hear constantly?

Politician: We've got to get tougher on crime. We've got to have stronger deterents. Then we'll have a safer society.

Wisened citizen: How?

Politician: Well...if people have to serve longer sentences, they'll be less likely to commit the crime, and we'll be safer.

Wisened citizen: [sadly shakes head]

Politician: What?

Wisened citizen: Your proposition is based on a faulty assumption. You assume that criminals weigh the risks before commiting crimes, the pros and cons. The criminal mind is different. Often they have not developed their rational thinking. Crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, in a fit of passion, often under the influence of drugs and alcohol. There is no thought of what the punishment is. Therefore, stronger punishments will not make crimes less likely to happen. All we can hope to do is keep criminals in jail longer. This will be very expensive. It will take a lot of tax dollars. Say, doesn't your party talk about lowering taxes all the time?

Politican: Got to go now.

It is discouraging to see people still trotting out this tired old line when we know what works: prevention. And the earlier, the better. The behavioural problems that predict criminal behaviour can be seen by the time children reach school. The first five years are crucial. We don't think of crime prevention when we think of toddlers, but it's where the rubber hits the road. Not that programs that focus on later stages will be uneffective - some seem to be quite good - but their effectiveness will be even greater if it builds on something that starts in early childhood, giving support to parents and services to children.

The research is pretty clear. Focusing on early childhood will reduce crime among those kids later on in life. One particular early childhood intervention program - which included quality child care for these disadvantaged kids - found that 40 years later, those kids now adults have committed less crimes and in general take less resources (e.g. social assistance) than their counterparts who didn't have the program. Here's the kicker: In the end, even though the program was expensive, the savings in the long run have been about 17 to 1. For every dollar that was spent on that program, society has saved about $17 in not having to pay for jails, remedial education, social assistance, etc. (In this case, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure)

But that means what has become a dirty word for many politicians: social programs. Politicians need a wake-up call. Society will pay for it's less fortunate members, one way or another. They can pay now to give people supports and meaningful options, or we can pay later in jail. And contrary to popular belief, the second way is far more expensive.