No matter the context, it is always in the interest of the state — and its citizens — to minimize crime.
Bear with me — I’m about to say something particularly controversial:
Crime is . . . bad.
Bad for society, bad for neighborhoods, bad for the victims, and bad for the criminals themselves.
This once-axiom is now regarded as a blasphemous invective against modern orthodoxies.
“But the causes of crime are multifaceted, complex, systematic, institutionalized, material, racist, post-colonial, and capitalist!”
It is true, my dear, imaginary interlocutor, that the exact causation of a particular human act in any given context will always be impossible to quantify with precision, and that the influence of historical and social forces remains strong. One thing is certain, however: Humans possess agency and are the ultimate arbiters of their own actions.
There can be, of course, factors in any specific case which mitigate the agent’s responsibility for his own actions, including bad actions in the civic sphere, i.e. crimes.
A helpful distinction, drawn from the well of Catholic theology, can be applied here: culpa vs. pena. These two Latin terms roughly translate to “blame” and “penalty,” respectively.
Say a child grew up in a broken home and, through no fault of his own, became addicted to alcohol from a very young age. Now, as an adult, he still struggles daily with alcoholism. After a bad episode, he gets behind the wheel and causes a tragic accident which results in the death of a pedestrian.
In this narrative, the culpa of the inebriated driver would be less than, say, a clear-headed driver who set out with the malicious intent to plow down a pedestrian. However, the pena — the consequence — of his action remains. An innocent pedestrian was killed and their loved ones will have to suffer for it.
For a less dramatic example, say a teenager fell out of the habit of attending school during the pandemic, and no one has since encouraged him to complete his GED. Due to this experience, and his unstable home environment, he spends his days out and about with a group of friends in similar circumstances. To fill their time, they see how many items they can sneak out of local stores without getting caught. What began with snacks and sodas has leveled up to AirPods and iPhones, tempting more and more peers to join in on the fun.
While the teenagers in this story would certainly possess less culpa than an armed, organized retail crime unit, the social pena remains. Cops called to the scene acknowledge there is little they can do, especially when dealing with juveniles and misdemeanors. Store managers grow apathetic about phoning the police. Locked items, gated exits, and security personnel become commonplace. Customers in the neighborhood become accustomed to witnessing unhindered theft. Social trust breaks down, paving the way for more violent crimes. Stores close.
How could such outcomes be kept from recurring? Civic authorities have two main tools at their disposal: prevention and deterrence.
For the drunk driver in our first story, of course it would have been better if he had joined a rehabilitation program or received treatment before the incident that would have helped him stay sober. Of course it would have been better if his parents had been reliable and responsible, never exposing him to alcoholism in the first place.
For the teenager in our second story, of course it would have been better if he had stayed in school and was encouraged to do so. Of course it would have been better if he had access to a stable home life and other engaging activities.
Preventative measures seek to foster positive preliminary conditions — the “root” of the issue — and such conditions ought to be sought after. Rehabilitation programs, family support, school services, social security, after school extracurriculars, community initiatives, and material aid are all good things, especially when properly utilized.
All the support programs in the world could not prevent crime alone though. “All carrot” and “no stick” cannot produce social concord. (Even saints require the threat of consequences to encourage right action.)
And yet, the “all carrot” mindset is an oft-assumed premise of progressive legislation: Minimizing deterrence and maximizing prevention results in safer communities.
This is definitively and evidently untrue.
In California, Proposition 47, which went into effect in 2014, tested this theory in real time. Among other slip-ups, the bill minimized criminal penalties for drug possession, date rape, theft of merchandize under $950, and vagrancy. The bill maximized funding (or so it said) for treatment programs and public housing, while removing judges’ ability to order drug-rehabilitation programs.
Ten years later, the results are undeniable.
Proposition 47 propelled a mind-boggling escalation of crime throughout California. Apart from a state-wide rise in retail crime, the number of homeless vagrants and drug addicts on the streets rose by 50 percent.
A group of practical advocates — matched by half a million and counting Californians — are seeking to add “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction And Theft Reduction Act” to the ballot this fall. Their mission is simple: “Hold repeated retail theft offenders accountable, stop the deadly flow of fentanyl, and treat the seriously addicted.” According to initial polls, the conservative-leaning group has over 70 percent of popular support among members of the Golden State.
A similar effort is underway in the nation’s capital, where — as National Review has noted — crime has surged in the last few years. Crime has become so pervasive that even the Democrats of D.C. are trying to pass a bill that would make criminal behavior illegal again. This move comes after the same party, only a few years prior, loosened consequences for theft, substance abuse, attempted assault, etc., raised the felony threshold, and widely tolerated misdemeanors.
In a rigorous report from D.C. Crime Facts, the certainty of punishment in D.C. is weaker than it has been in decades, arrests per MPD officer have cratered, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office has prosecuted only half of the arrests made. For reference, out of the already measly portion of Assaults with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) that resulted in a papered arrest, only 6 percent of those cases culminated in an actual ADV conviction. An even lesser percentage of those convicted were met with firm sentences.
In short, over the last few years in D.C., fewer criminals have been prohibited from committing additional crimes (by the certain means of jail or prison) than ever before.
The consequences are dire. Just today, right outside of the District, a baby in the arms of its mother was shot through the chest by two masked gunmen; the mother was shot in the leg. Last week, a businessman and public servant, waiting on the curb to pick his wife up from work downtown, was killed by a man who got into his car and shot him in the head, entirely unprovoked. Last month, a member of my parish was murdered point-blank after armed men drove up next to him and demanded money. The 23-year-old, who was part of a Catholic service program that requires its members to take a vow of poverty, had none to give, and it cost him his life.
No matter the context, it is always in the interest of the state — and its citizens — to minimize crime.
Many believe this can be accomplished only by ending poverty, addiction, inequality, all human suffering, etc. Such aims are noble, and I hope we as citizens pursue them with charity and zeal. But they are misguided.
Regardless of the material circumstances, the human condition is forever tempted by disordered self-interest. Even in the Garden of Eden, mankind will find a way to do the wrong thing. (We’re really quite good at it, in fact.) Free will is an awesome burden.
As the state cannot control the will of individuals — nor should it attempt to do so — such control must be exerted by means of deterrence when prevention fails.
Deterrence is built by the administration of firm, just, and consistent penalties to those who do commit crimes. “Built” is a key word here — an atmosphere of deterrence cannot be constructed overnight. The faithful reporting of crimes by witnesses, the diligent response of police officers, the consistent prosecution of arrested suspects, and the meting out of just sentences all help craft a structure of deterrence.
While deterrence may be the last resort — it is still a necessary one.