The Cost of Leniency & the Democrats' Crime Problem

Liberal approaches to crime and safety require reevaluation

“Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.” John Jay, Federalist No. 3

Arguably all modern political issues boil down to two key priorities; liberty and safety. As someone who is liberally inclined, I find that people on my side of the political spectrum place a much higher priority on safety than personal liberty, often willing to sacrifice privacy or economic freedom for the sake of ensuring a baseline of governmentally-provided security. Whether that prioritization of safety manifests in social safety nets and welfare programs, governmental invasion of personal privacy to catch potential safety threats or gun control, it seems most liberal positions on issues would lend themselves to the idea that those on the left view safety as paramount to all other objectives of government.

That’s why I find it so incredibly perplexing how crime-infested and dangerous most modern democratic cities are; how is a voter base so open to ceding freedom for safety so consistently voting for politicians that don’t seem to care about making their cities safer? The truth is that there is a disconcerting reality regarding the left's approach to crime; they simply have no idea what they're doing.

I truly believe that the misconceptions that permeate liberal ideas on how to handle crime come from a place of genuine belief in the goodness of humanity, but that doesn’t make the results any less dangerous. A major problem with the leftist worldview is the belief that every single person operates with some set of moral code, and will only break the societally accepted social contract when they are forced to. While a calming belief to hold and a nice thing to say out loud, this simply isn’t true. Every single field in the social sciences at some point must acknowledge that humans have a predisposition to act in their self-interest, even when those actions come at the expense of others.

The problem with far-left voters is that they believe a society in which every person can live without committing crimes is a society in which crime doesn’t exist, which is easily disproved by taking a critical look at pretty much any instance of crime. Why do those with the means to support themselves steal? Why do those who can live without fearing for their lives murder? Why do gangs form in areas that aren’t completely barren of employment and economic growth? I argue there are two main reasons; mental illness and the economy of crime. I will highlight the former first, as it is already something most liberals acknowledge.

Mental illness is an American epidemic, and it needs to be treated as such. Liberals and Leftists alike have a pretty good understanding that preventative measures must be taken to aid those with mental illness and decrease the likelihood that they cause harm to themselves and others, and where these measures have taken place a decrease in violent crime often follows. However, the very unfortunate truth of the matter is that no amount of preventative measures or mental health-conscious education will be able to solve every case of mental illness. The brain is far too complex to be generalized for all 300 plus million Americans, and there aren’t enough resources in the world to keep tabs on the mental state of every person.

Where liberals fail is when somebody undergoes a mental health episode and commits a violent crime is that while often the perpetrator is in a position of marginalization by society, they still pose an imminent threat to valuable innocent lives. As then-senator Joe Biden explained on the Senate floor in 1993, “It doesn’t matter if the person attacking my son or your daughter, my parents or your parents, were deprived as a youth…the end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe.”

Preventative measures to reduce mental illness and poverty are unquestionably an important part of creating a perfect society, but the often-held belief that those who commit crimes because of the failings of a previous government in reducing poverty deserve to be left to their devices is dangerous and destructive. I doubt any person living in an area with rampant poverty or mental illness would be okay with criminals being left on the streets when it directly threatens their safety, but often the policy instituted by liberal elected officials does just that. To ensure justice for all citizens, those who threaten security must be taken off the streets, no matter what.

The second reality of crime that liberals don’t acknowledge is that humans will always commit crimes if it is economically beneficial for them to do so (albeit based on many more economic factors than money). When the opportunity cost of not committing a crime (or the benefit given up by not stealing that candy bar) outweighs the utility maintained by keeping your hands in your pockets, every single person will steal that bar. Now I'm sure you’re thinking “Even if I could get away with it, I wouldn’t steal - that’s just not who I am”. Well good news for you, this could be true! However, morals directly factor into the economic calculation that determines whether a crime is worth committing.

If the sum of the utility gained from crime, usually money or personal satisfaction depending on the motive of the crime, outweighs ALL of the potential negative utility incurred, including but not limited to probability of punishment, severity of punishment, moral self-image, and potential loss of social standing, then that crime will be committed. Your moral propensity to avoid crime is part of the calculation. Where liberals often fail most is in overlooking the severity of punishment part of this calculation. Liberal district attorneys and governors subscribe to the oft-cited theory that it is the probability of being caught, not the severity of punishment, that leads to crime deterrence.

Often cited are studies like this one from the Department of Justice, which notes that increasing probability of being caught has a higher impact on reducing crime than increasing punishment. This is true in part but ignores another part of the study that notes for this to be true, a certain level of punishment must be given out to those caught as part of that “certainty of apprehension”. After all, if stealing a car gives you a 90 percent chance of being caught, but your sentence is a day long or your charges always get dropped, why not commit the crime until you get away with it? This is congruent with the theory of crime economy, as severity and probability of punishment are complementary factors when calculating utility. Sure, sending someone to jail for 100 years for theft won’t do much to stop crime from occurring, but not sending them at all most definitely will.

While I believe in stricter crime policy from the left, it should not be forgotten that to root out crime in the future, preventative measures must be taken. Improving education, safety, and opportunities for youths in vulnerable situations is incredibly important to not only keeping them safer but the rest of society safer as well. I believe that if the left is willing to abandon the no-nuance, completely forgiving, and failing crime policy that has kept many major cities as dangerous places to live, they can finally fix their image as a group that is willing to sacrifice the safety of citizens for the sake of some facetious moral high ground. A safer society shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And if liberals can acknowledge that what they’re doing isn’t working, it doesn’t have to be.