A similar example can be used for adults and adult crime.One of the ways to increase the benefits of noncrime would be to provide vocational opportunities and jobs to individuals who are at high risk of committing crimes as well as to make it easier for those who have already committed crimes to turn away from it in favor of more conventional opportunities.Increased numbers of police officers increase the expected cost of crime by increasing would-be offenders’ perceived certainty of getting caught and arrested (on the assumption that the more police officers there are on the streets, the more eyes there are watching you).
” you will quickly conclude that the policymakers thought that by increasing the certainty of punishment (the number of people who go to prison) and the severity of punishment (how long people stay there), crime will be reduced.
They thought this because they assumed (either implicitly or explicitly) that offenders and would-be offenders are rational beings who take into account the costs and benefits of their behavior, and if a behavior is made more costly with enhanced punishment, then rational people will be disinclined to commit it.
To reduce crime, one or all of the four following general actions could be taken: Sometimes these policy paths would overlap such that when we increase the cost of crime we may also be increasing the benefits of non-crime.
However, with these four general points in mind, we can briefly explore the crime-reduction possibilities of RCT.
Former President Bill Clinton made as one of the important supports of his crime control policies the requirement to hire 100,000 new police officers and put them out on the streets.
He might not have explicitly said that his policy was based on RCT, but it was.
For example, one of the reasons kids in inner-city neighborhoods get involved with crime and drugs is that they get thrills or some kind of “kick” out of doing it.
In other words, crime and drug use supplies them with a rush.
Frequently, then, when there are calls for more police, less plea bargaining in courts, more prison terms and less use of probation, and more certain and longer prison terms, these calls are based on the expectations of RCT that such measures will increase either the objective or expected costs of crime and, other things being equal, will reduce the level of crime.
Increasing the costs of crime is only one way under deterrence theory and RCT to reduce the level of crime; one can also lower crime by increasing the benefits of activities that compete with crime.