And if you don't hang 'em - flog 'em!

I spotted this on the Civitas web-site and plotted a couple of little charts to visualise what’s going on.

The first chart shows, on the left, the European countries sorted by the most crime ridden at the top and the least at the bottom.  Notice Blighty shamefully second from the top.  In fact, the close relationship between the battle-axe wielding Norsemen, Anglo-Saxons and Huns and a granny-bashingly high crime rate, is mirrored by the observation that any country with a shoreline on the Med seems almost blissfully crime-free.  Must be all that olive oil and sunshine.  With the exception of the Irish - which might lead one to wonder if it’s a Proddy / Catholic thing?

To see that neither explanation is correct we look at the right side of the chart.

Here we see the “lock ‘em up” figure per 1,000 crimes for the countries listed – and notice the strongly inverse relationship with the crime rate.  The “give ‘em another chance” Northern softies suffer the consequences of a soaring crime rate, while the “chuck away the key” Southerners enjoy a low crime rate, Mediterranean cuisine and agreeable weather.  Bastards.

Chart 1 - click to enlarge:-

Now some of you lily-livered Northern pussies might be worrying about the costs of a spiralling prison population on our collective privy purse should we decide to toughen our custodial sentencing to enjoy a reduced crime rate?  To investigate that we can look at the second little chart I’ve prepared for you.

Chart 2 - click to enlarge: -

The blue line shows the increasing severity of sentencing: ‘Soppy Swedes’ on the left and the ‘Spanish Inquisition’ on the right.

As we already know the purple line shows the dramatic fall in the crime rate associated with tougher sentencing.

The yellow line shows the effect on the prison population.  Initially the prison population rises and then appears to fluctuate around an average of 100 prisoners per 100,000.  The black polynomial curve uses a maths technique to smooth the fluctuations and displays the trend: a steady rise, flattening out and then an actual fall in the prison population.

The relationship between stricter sentencing and a negligible increase, or even a decrease, in the prison population on the right half of the curve may seem counter-intuitive. What’s going on?

An analogy reveals all.

In the 1980’s the golden haired Thatcher declared that she was going to increase the total revenue to the Exchequer by lowering our tax rates.  “What!?” exclaimed the economists, “How can revenue rise when tax rates fall?”  These were probably the same 364 so called experts who signed a letter criticizing her monetarist policies to combat stagflation - only to have to eat their words as both inflation and unemployment became history (along with their primitive Keynesian economics).

She realised that the increase in national taxable income stimulated by incentives, for example…: -

(1) To earn more by the working class (who still existed then),
(2) To earn anything at all by the Chavs,
(3) To not evade / avoid tax or offshore their earnings by the domestic middle class,
(4) To earn income in Blighty rather than abroad by the international middle class,

…would exceed the decrease in national tax rates, thereby yielding greater total tax revenue.  She calculated that Blighty had been operating on the sub-optimal right hand end of the Laffer curve – see Wiki for an explanation of the economic Laffer curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve .

She was right (praise be upon Her).  The Exchequer’s coffers never had it so good.

Now my proposition is this: that there is a Laffer curve for crime, which operates in the same manner as the economic one, the only difference being the x and y parameters on the axes.

Chart 3 - click to enlarge: -

On the left hand side, starting at the lowest custodial sentence possible - none - the prison population would also be none.  A million people locked up for zero time is zero prison population.  Crime levels would be extremely high reflecting the punishment leniency (see first chart).  If you then increase the severity to just one day in prison an enormous leap in the prison population would occur, the small sentence applying to the enormous crime base.  Even if you doubled the sentence to two days the criminal fraternity would be undeterred, the crime base would be largely unaltered but the sentence doubled, so the prison population would almost double.  Gradually the deterrence effect starts to make itself felt and the prison population growth rate slows down.  This is the part of the curve that Blighty is in now, as shown in the second chart: tougher sentencing equals an increase in the prison population, albeit a slowing rate of increase.

After the peak in prison population we then get to enjoy the ‘positive double whammy’ on the right side of the curve: a virtuous circle of decreasing prison population and crime.  With harsher sentencing the rational criminal class starts to seriously contemplate the balance of the ‘gain versus punishment’ equation.  The opposing effects on prison population of an increase in sentencing (lengthening prison stays on the one hand) and deterrence (decreasing the number of prison stays on the other hand) combine to offset each other at the peak.  Eventually the deterrence effect out-weighs the longer sentences and the prison population starts to fall.

This ‘tougher sentencing reduces prison population’ phenomenon is touched upon in the second chart (actual values of the Euro-states).  But due to Europe’s overall ignorance of the Laffer crime curve - and consequential sentencing leniency - it is not being enjoyed to its full potential.  Hence the only slight downward turn in the prison population trend on the right side of the Euro-states chart.

Also, we should observe that there are some criminals whom no punishment will deter – their stubborn contribution to total prison population is the blue line on the third chart.  In our times their number is bolstered by drug addiction.  So the virtuous right side of the curve is tempered somewhat: the prison population never falls to zero, but rather leaves an intractable rump of serial offenders in jail while the 'rational' criminals go straight.

But while Maggie’s Laffer curve becomes skewed by the nut-jobs and druggies in its crime curve manifestation, we should remind ourselves that at the virtuous right-hand end of the curve the crime rate is rock-bottom – see the first and second charts - on account of: -

(1) The habitual criminals coming out less often to re-offend,
(2) The “rational” criminals deterred.

And the prison population is less than the central peak, albeit not as markedly as Laffer’s taxation curve.

So what is needed is a huge toughening of sentencing to push us deep into the virtuous right side of the curve, beyond the 'Spanish Inquisition', so as to enjoy a low crime rate and a smaller prison population.

All this leaves Blighty’s latest crop of ‘experts’ - trying to reduce crime and the prison population by a moderate toughening of sentencing - and their ‘expert’ predecessors - who tried to reduce crime and the prison population by more lenient sentencing – both looking equally as thick as thieves.  Just as the Keynsian economic ‘experts’ of the 70’s did in the 80’s.

Unfortunately it is we who will pay the price until the Penny drops.  Just as the European economies did until the monetarist Penny dropped in 1979.

Son of Duff

Comments

[David Duff]

Oh dear,'Larry' will be doing his sums even as I type!

[Larry Teabag]

Don't worry I'm not going to come out all blustering and frothing at the mouth just yet, but I do have one or two comments:

First, your primary contention - the existence of the Laffer crime curve with its virtuous right hand side - is unproven. The only evidence you've provided for it is the miniscule dip at the end of the black curve in chart 2. Since you haven't told us what that curve is (other than that it's given by "a maths technique"), I am not inclined to trust it an inch, let alone its extrapolation miles beyond anything supported by the current evidence.

Second, the “lock ‘em up” versus “give ‘em another chance” dichotomy is far too simplictic. A zero-tolerance approach (whereby people go to prison for a short time for even very minor crimes) is one thing, calling for longer sentences to be surved for major crimes, or what to do with repeat offenders - these are other matters, with their own corresponding issues of the effectivity of deterrence, public safety, and prison numbers. I'm sure your preference would be "all of the above". But an analysis which just says that we need more people in prison is no good, unless it also tells us which people we should be focussing on putting there, and for how long.

For instance it would be perfectly consistent with everything you've said that we don't need to change our sentencing arrangements at all, we just need better police investigations and DPP to ensure more convictions per thoudand recorded crimes. (I'm not saying that's the case, just that you haven't ruled it out as a possibility.)

[Planeshift]

The logical conclusion of the argument is therefore to introduce capital punishment for all crimes. This would deter the rational criminal, and allow us to eliminate the irrational criminals. Perhaps we could save some money by killing them all en mass with Zyklon showers...

The main problem with the argument above is it relies on crime figures, which are flawed at best, and calculated differently every time the government of the day decides to do so. Regular readers of David Copperfield's blog will know the basics of these flaws.

Its also worth considering that most of us have comitted petty crime quite regularly. How many of us can honestly say we have never broken the speed limit, parked on double yellow lines, left litter in the theatre, or broken copywrite laws? And how many of these crimes will appear in any statistics.

Another factor to consider is that punishments are very inconsistant, with judge's discretion used. In one case an assault could get you a fine, in another the same severity of assault would get you several years. The difference being the skill of your barrister, whether you plead guilty and have a believable sob story etc. So in order to deter a rational criminal there must be a clear message as to the punishment you will get, but also a system that allows discretion in sentencing.

Furthermore the likelyhood of conviction is a very important factor. Rape carries a life sentence (itself meaningless due to massive differences in the tarrifs handed out), but the shockingly low rates of conviction mean rapists stand a good chance of getting away with it.

So your central thesis is far from proven. Having said that I would agree that punishments for violent crime need increasing, but thats not because I think it would deter crime, merely because I dislike violence.

[Lorna]

In a safe, sane and consensual manner with negotiation and safewords, I hope. Remember to stay away from the lower back, because while you do have a spare kidney, it would prefer not to have to do all the work. Similarly, walloping anywhere the bones are close to the skin is Right Out.