← Back to Book Detail

4 The Economics of Crime (4/9) -- Economics for the Greater Good

Browse
44%

4 The Economics of Crime

4 The Economics of Crime Caroline Krafft What is crime? Before we can measure crime, understand its causes, or think about policy solutions to prevent and reduce crime, it is important to take a step back and ask a fundamental question: What is crime? In the simplest terms, a crime is an illegal act or action. Since different countries, states, and even cities have different laws, what is considered a crime varies across localities. The definition of crime has also evolved over time. Context can often determine what is and is not legal. For example, in Maryland it is illegal to keep chickens (and other poultry) without registering the birds.[1] The law is motivated by both economic and public health concerns. Poultry is the state’s number one agricultural product. Backyard birds may be at risk in cases of disease outbreaks, as well as potentially spreading disease to commercial flocks.[2] In other contexts, for instance in Connecticut where poultry production is low, poultry registration is not mandated by law.[3] Though the term “crime” is often used in moral and justice-based contexts, for example “a crime against humanity,” laws are not inherently moral or just. What is considered moral is often in the hands of lawmakers, and laws often embody the common attitudes of the times. In the United States, laws are typically passed by local, state, and federal legislatures by elected representatives. Thus, the attitudes, including the biases, of voters and policymakers may become embedded in the law. Ideally, law and morality are one and the same. However, this has proven not to be true historically. Laws—and definitions of crimes—can be immoral or unjust. For example, historically in the state of Virginia, marriage between individuals of different races was illegal. Such laws are referred to as anti-miscegenation laws. Thus, the 1958 marriage of Mildred Jeter, an African-American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, was a crime in the state of Virginia. The Lovings were indicted (charged) and sentenced for this crime. Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck down the law (and similar laws in other states) in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. The ruling was based on the principle of individuals having equal protection before the law, prohibiting discrimination based on race.[4] A more recent example is the laws and punishments for different forms of cocaine. Crack cocaine is produced from powder cocaine, but the amount of crack cocaine that triggers eligibility for a mandatory minimum sentence is 1/100th the amount of powder cocaine. This disparity embodies racial biases, as the majority of individuals (more than 80%) of those convicted for crack cocaine offenses are African American, compared to a third of those convicted for powder cocaine and other drugs. Recent reform, in response to outcry around the bias in sentencing, has changed this ratio to a minimum sentence for crack cocaine at 1/20th the amount of powder cocaine. However, the law still em
← Previous Chapter Next Chapter →