"The evidence is that the serious violent crime rate is much higher in Thatcherite political economies than in welfare state economies. One contributor writes: “There is a plethora of material confirming that crime of all kinds is linked to inequality, relative deprivation and unemployment.” So, for example, the rise in crime in Britain in the 1980s was due to what happened in the 1980s although, naturally, Margaret Thatcher blamed it on what had happened 20 years before. And it was the 1980s, not the 1960s, that saw the dramatic rise in opiate use in Britain.
The evidence shows that states with higher welfare spending have less crime and lower imprisonment rates. For every dollar spent, Michigan’s Head Start welfare programme brought $17 of benefit by cutting crime, thereby cutting the numbers imprisoned and the costs of imprisonment.
Of course, recognising that crime has root causes does not stop us exploring all possible avenues of crime reduction, victim support and penal reform. Nor does it mean ignoring offenders’ moral responsibility. Understanding does not cancel the need for judgement.
Thatcherite political economies have more punitive penal policies. Yet welfarist Sweden has had a smaller rise in crime than Britain while having a less punitive penal policy. Similarly, Finland has dramatically cut its prison numbers without increasing crime.
Growing economic inequality and social polarisation increase crime and, therefore, fear and insecurity. We cannot afford to leave the economy, or society, or security to the market. We need to take responsibility for all aspects of our society."
No comments:
Post a Comment