If you are looking for an explanation of why we
don’t get tough with criminals, you need only look at the numbers. Each year
almost a third of the households in America are victims of violence or theft.
This amounts to more than 41 million crimes, many more than we are able to
punish. There are also too many criminals. We don’t have room for any
more! The painful fact is that the more crime there is, the
less we are able to punish it. We think that punishment prevents crime, but it
just might be the other way around. When there is so much crime it is simply
impossible to deal with it or punish it. This is the situation we find ourselves
in today, the gradual increase in the criminal population has made it more
difficult to get into prison. Some of the most exclusive prisons now require
about five serious crimes before a criminal is accepted. These
features show that it makes little sense to blame the police or judges for being
soft on criminals. There is not much else they can do. The police can’t find
most criminals and those they do find are difficult and costly to convict. Those
convicted can’t all be sent to prison. The public demands that we do everything
we can against crime. The practical reality is that there is very little the
police, courts or prisons can do about the crime problem. We
could, of course, get tough with the people we already have in prison and keep
them locked up for longer periods of time. Yet when measured against the lower
crime rates, this would probably produce, longer prison sentences are not worth
the cost to states and local governments. Besides, those states that have tried
to gain voters’ approval for building new prisons often discover that the public
is unwilling to pay for prison constructions. And if it were willing to pay,
long prison sentences may not be effective in reducing crime.
More time spent in prison is also more expensive. The best estimates are that it
costs an average of $13,000 to keep a person in prison for one year. If we had a
place to keep the 124,000 released prisoners, it would have cost us $1.6 billion
to prevent 15,000 crimes. This works out to more than $100,000 per crime
prevented. But there is more. With the average cost of prison construction
running around $50,000 per bed, it would cost more than $6 billion to build the
necessary cells. The first-year operating cost would be $150,000 per crime
prevented, worth it if the victim were you or me, but much too expensive to be
feasible as a national policy. Faced with the reality of the
numbers, I will not be so foolish as to suggest a solution to the crime problem.
My contribution to the public debate begins and ends with this simple
observation, getting tough with criminals is not the answer. By saying "it just might be the other way around" (para. 2), the writer
means ______.
A. severe punishment lowers crime rates
B. soft measures lead to the rise of crime rates
C. easy policies are more effective than strict ones
D. the increase in crime makes punishment difficult