The Indirect Consequences of Crime
Efforts to measure the costs of crime generally focus on direct effects. They try to place a monetary value on the loss to victims and tally the cost to governments of dealing with crime. Yet looking only to direct effects and ignoring indirect effects is a major source of error in public policy. The indirect effects of crime are large and important. Brian Patrick Eha has a two-part essay in the City Journal titled The Element of Crime, exploring these issues. Part one is here. His focus is on New York, the place he knows best, but the theme is universal.
To live in New York today is to experience, on a regular basis, visibly and abrasively, the element of crime. By this, I mean more than run-ins with the “criminal element,” that is, serious offenders, though such encounters are more frequent. I mean not only, for instance, the 25 times that someone was pushed onto subway tracks in 2022—four more times than in 2021—but also the countless small infractions, spit in the eye of the body politic, the casual disrespect for law and common decency: the picnic table covered in food waste and Kool-Aid pouches when a trash can is two feet away; the pharmacy with locked cabinets for such valuables as fruit juice and deodorant; the requirement, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s recent Van Gogh exhibit, to empty your water bottle before entering the gallery, for fear that some vandal might smuggle in a substance with which to desecrate the art, as has happened at more than a dozen museums over the past year. I mean, in short, all the demoralizing effects of which pervasive crime is the cause, the impact that lawlessness and an inescapable awareness of it—to say nothing of official resignation or indifference—has on society and the psyche. Continue reading . . .