For as long as man has existed, so too has crime: One of the first stories in the Bible is Cain slaying Abel. As all cultures have been forced to confront this issue, all have created systems to handle it, be they formal or informal.

And by crime, I mean true crimes, whose platonic ideal is well described by the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). These crimes, such as murder, theft, and assault have been an important part of legal codes since they began to be recorded.

I have identified roughly 3 prongs, or lenses, which can be used to address crime:

Personal Responsibility: Actions individuals can take independently.
Pursuit & Punishment: Actions taken by the criminal justice system.
Social Change: Actions taken by the community as a whole.

These prong are interdependent, building on and strengthening each other. Neglect one facet, and the entire structure crumbles with the mildest jolt from willful and unrepentant criminals.

There is not enough space to cover all the research and all of the arguments to be made, so this article will instead provide a general introduction to the series of essays which will follow, where individual points will be discussed in greater depth, including support with statistics and other useful sources.

1. Personal Responsibility

While we can influence others, ultimately all we can only control our own actions. Because our own actions are fully within our own control, this prong is the primary framework on which the other two hang.

Make a Conscious Decision to Avoid Crime

While this may seem juvenile or even naïve, ultimately, committing crime is always a personal choice,* and that people from every background can make this decision.

If people can consciously choose not to commit crimes, that means that engaging in crime is also a choice. Once we acknowledge and internalize this, it is clear that criminals can be held responsible for any crimes they commit. Knowing that criminals are morally responsible for all crimes they commit is the most important concept for the reduction of crime. Without this belief, nothing serious or long-lasting can be accomplished.

Reduce the Chances that You will be Victimized

You cannot prevent others committing crimes, but you can take steps to decrease your chances of being victimized. There are reasonable, common sense measures which you can take to help manage your risk, such as locking your doors at night.

In the end though, regardless of how much you decrease your changes of being targeted, they will never be completely eliminated. You can never act in some mythically “prefect” way that prevents you from being victimized, and to suggest so is blaming the victim for the choices of the criminal.

Crimes in Progress

Each crime is different, in unique circumstances, and the dangers involved are not always clear. Those involved in these situations should use their own best judgment, but there are some general principles to consider:

Interruption. An attempted crime is always preferable to an accomplished one.
De-escalation. “And first do no harm.” Avoid actions likely to make situations worse.
Aid and Report. If you cannot interrupt a crime, then you should seek help from authorities. This includes making police statements.
Use force, if needed. Though legality of force varies between jurisdictions, the concept of Estoppel allows us to understand that you are morally justified in using as much force as the criminal.

A decision not to engage in any of the above ways of managing crime, or the inability to do so, is never a fault or defect of the victim.

2. Pursue & Punish

While we have the ability to completely control our own actions, it is naïve to think that this will prevent all crime. For this reason, all societies need system of justice, formal or informal. Though in reality Justice Systems function in diverse ways, their goals should revolve around restoration of victims, managing offenders, and deterring crime.

Making Victims Whole

Victims of crimes can become traumatized, with long term emotional, physical, and financial issues as a result of the crime they suffered. Justice systems should take serious steps to see that these damages are addressed.

Stolen property should be recovered, costs passed on to the criminal, the victim should remain physically separated from the criminal, and minimum sentences should probably be about 18 months*.

Assessing Criminals

There is a small number of people, which we will call “disproportionate offenders” (sometimes called super-predators*), that make a career out of victimizing others. The percentage of crime that can be committed by only 2-3 people can be shocking.

The intention of “Three Strike Rules” was to identify disproportionate offenders in a systematic and impartial way. In these cases, the only way to defend the public from them is physical separation.

However, other criminals have committed heinous acts, but are unlikely to commit another, and sentences should reflect these facts.

Deterrence

Laws do not prevent crime, only the surety of punishment can do that. Most who claim that a “law” prevents them from doing something, are actually referring to the fact that fear of punishment for breaking the law is causing them to reconsider.

Law, without punishment, has never been able to prevent crime. The purpose of laws is to justify the use of punishment. Written law prevents people from claiming they “did not know” something was inappropriate, while simultaneously establishing a reasonable punishment.

Threats of draconian punishment are similarly ineffective if criminals feel they will never be punished. Additionally, overly harsh sentences or poor conditions can lead to juries finding criminals “not guilty” because they believe the punishment is too harsh.

It is essential that criminals are hunted with the full force of the law, to show that crime will not be tolerated.

3. Social Conditions

It would be wrong to say that social conditions do not encourage or discourage criminality. It is wrong to say to say these forces create crime– they just encourage others to refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

Systemic Issues. There is no strong support for the idea that sexism, racism, or poverty create crime, when you control for other variables properly. Instead, we see things like childhood victimization, lack of access to entertainment, and frustration in the job market play a much larger role.

Legal Clarity & Appropriateness. Laws need to be clear, easy to understand, and limited in number. All laws which exist should be enforced consistently, or repealed, to avoid legal “broken windows“.

Public Trust. We trust those in positions of power to care for the most vulnerable among us. Because of their notoriety and influence, they should be held to the highest standards. When they seem “above the law”, they destroy public belief in justice, which emboldens criminals.

Glorification of Crime. While “heroic” tales of criminals have always existed, modern expressions generally lack the sense that the criminal is on borrowed time, on the run, and soon to be punished.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no magic bullet to end crime, and many different factors intertwine with each other in significant ways. In future essays, I will explain give fuller explanations of different components, as well as actions that can reasonably be taken.

Notes and Comments

In no particular order.

My views on the purpose of law and prison are likely colored by my natural Conservatism. I welcome articles and papers from any political background, however.
For more information on the Non-Aggression Principle, my husband recommends Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty”, specifically the preface (pdf pages 43-45).
Belief in freewill is consistently associated with greater pro-social behavior (see section 3.1): therefore, determinism is an info-hazard.
The figure that it take “18 months” for most people to recover from psychologically traumatic events is not something I could find support for in literature. It seems the figure may have originated from Jordan Peterson’s clinical experience.
A “super-predator” has been defined in many ways. Here I am referring to a small group of criminals who commit a disproportionate number of crimes. For example, 4 men were responsible for 90% of bike thefts in the City of London. Homicide suspects in DC had been arrested on average 11 times before committing homicide. I am interested in any related reports or articles, or alternative names for this fact.
I welcome any papers arguing for or against 3 strike rules, or studies of their effectiveness.
Child abuse, even spanking, can lead to lifelong increased aggression and criminality.
Violent films decrease the crime rate on the days they are shown in theatre, because criminals are occupied and not drinking.