Commentary

Richard Farson

To gain some perspective on the dangerously irrational fear of crime in America, let’s look at some of the paradoxes—facts about crime that seem absurd but are nevertheless true. Consider, for example, the paradox that even if all the prisons were emptied and the inmates were turned completely loose we might not notice much increase in crime. This is because the vast majority of criminals are already at large, even many of the most dangerous ones.

Most crimes, even serious ones, are not even reported, and of those reported only a very small percentage are solved. Only one in four murders leads to a murder conviction. Only one in ten rapes is even reported. One in 150 burglaries is solved. The statistics for other unsolved lesser crimes are astronomical. Many of those convicted are not incarcerated, and within a few years almost all those who are incarcerated for serious crimes are set free. America’s criminals are already among us, and always have been.

Even though America has far more violent crime than any other developed country, the vast majority of Americans have never even witnessed a violent crime, let alone been the victim of one. For almost all of us (with notable and painful inner city exceptions) crime is mainly an event on television. Our contact with crime is virtual, not real.

Paradoxically, thanks to shallow media coverage and exploitative politicians, our fear of crime increases while crime itself decreases. The popular perception is that we are experiencing an "epidemic of crime", but actually crime rates have remained about the same over the past few decades, decreasing steadily in the past five years, a decrease, by the way, having nothing to do with draconian measures such as the "three strikes" laws.

Crime in America is full of such paradoxes. For example, absurd as it sounds, crime derives less from what we consider bad about our society than what we consider good. Forget about violence on television or pornography or faulty parenting. Even the blights of poverty and racism are not sufficient to explain it. Countries with poverty and racism far worse than ours have far less crime. Crime is probably more the result of four factors that at first glance seem to be the least likely causes.

The first, believe it or not, is the fact that we are a free and democratic society. Individual liberty, civil rights and freedom from excessive controls are elements of our society that we value most and would never abandon, even though they go hand in hand with increased crime rates. Totalitarian societies are relatively crime free, but they pay a price in the loss of personal freedom that we would find unacceptable.

Second is what we might call "The American Way". Individualism, affluence, mobility, urbanization, materialism, competition, consumerism—the defining values of our culture-- each contribute in its own way to the crime picture. For example, mobility and urbanization erode community, which is our strongest bulwark against crime. Affluence, materialism and consumerism create both desire and hopelessness among the poor, leading to criminal efforts to achieve the good life. Individualism and competition undermine social cohesion and cooperation, qualities that characterize low-crime nations such as Japan.

Third is law enforcement itself—our very efforts to control crime. Police corruption is only part of the story. More importantly, prisons have become training grounds for crime; detective work requires sustaining networks of criminal informants, and because we spend more building prisons than schools, the escalating costs of incarceration have siphoned off funds that could pay for crime prevention such as education and job training.

Finally we suffer from the glamorizing of crime and violence. As a nation we are obsessed with the excitement of crime and a fascination with violent criminals. It is not the amount of violence on television that should worry us, but how violence is uniformly shown to be the manly, and ultimately the most satisfying, resolution of conflict. Leading a life of crime is even seen as a road to sexual adventure, a motivational force impossible to overestimate. Inevitably, sex and violence are linked. As a result, gangsters, even prisoners, have little difficulty attracting women.

Actions that would likely reduce crime are also paradoxical, opposite from what politicians propose and all of us instinctively support. Bigger prisons, more police and harsher sentences seem rational and appealing, but are actually counterproductive. Rather we should consider measures that would really help.

The first of these is disarming--ourselves, each other, even the police. In 1995 Los Angeles suffered more than a thousand homicides by handguns. In London, where even most of the police carry no guns, there were fewer than one hundred.

Second, we could decriminalize or legalize much that is common behavior, but now considered criminal. It is simply not worth all the crime that results from our historically futile, and largely hypocritical, attempts to prevent people from selling sex, taking drugs, gambling, etc.

Third, empty these huge, expensive and failing prisons. Rehabilitation is impossible in the giant prisons we continue to build. Convicts emerge hardened and likely to commit more serious crimes. Even prison guards and prisoners themselves think that only a small fraction of the inmates represent any danger to society. We should keep those who must be incarcerated, or who could profit from incarceration, in small units of 20 or fewer, preferably in the communities to which they will return, engaged in individually designed programs of rehabilitation. The benefits would be great and the dangers small.

We can make our lives safer. But all of us, especially our leaders, will first have to realize that we Americans do not have a crime problem. We have a crime predicament--a permanent, complicated, paradoxical dilemma. Problems have solutions, but predicaments can only be coped with. When a predicament is treated as a problem it becomes worse. Crime is no exception.