Numerous studies by economists and others show that attempts to increase the deterrent effect of incarceration by adding minimum penalties to criminal codes and lengthening already long sentences have failed to demonstrate success (see Durlauf and Nagin, 2011) in reducing the number of persons who become victims of crime or the extent of harm to those victims.

The reasons for the failure are difficult to overcome but have little to do with tinkering with criminal codes:

• Surveys such as the US National Crime Victim Survey show that most criminal offenses are not reported to the police.  FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that most recorded offenses do not result in arrests.  Court data show that most arrests do not lead to convictions.
• Many offenders are not rational because they are mentally ill (as they are no longer held in mental hospitals) and/or  are drunk.
• Drug traffickers show that they are not deterred by the risk of being killed by a rival gang member.  So sanctions through the rule of law are unlikely to work.
• The demands of production line justice lead to prosecutors being forced to make compromises even with statutory minima

In contrast, smart policing can reduce the number, and harm to, victims significantly.

• There has been a steady reduction in deaths at the hands of drunk drivers in the United States, from 30,000 in 1980 to 12,000 in 2008. The impact of MADD in getting increased certainty of detection needs no further introduction.
• The US Strategic Approach to Community Safety Initiative sponsored programs in 10 cities primarily to reduce homicide.  In Indianapolis and Portland there were 32  and 42 percent reductions in homicide. The model is now being promoted nationally in the U.S. through Project Safe Neighborhoods.
• Between 2006 and July 2011 auto thefts declined by 83 percent in the City of Winnipeg in Canada due in major part to the Auto Theft Suppression Strategy that combines smart enforcement, victim protection and pre-crime prevention.  Since 2005, the investment of $50 million has been recovered and $40 million saved by taxpayers each year.

As US super-cop Bill Bratton says, you cannot arrest your way out of crime.  In addition to smart policing, there are many pre-crime prevention strategies that are cost effective in reducing crime.  Police support for, and partnership in, successful ways to stop harm to victims of crime are discussed in Less Law, More Order and Rights for Victims of Crime, and many other blogs on this website.  Some of the important examples today are:

• Alberta has a comprehensive, permanent and evidence based crime reduction and community safety strategy balancing smart enforcement, treatment programs and effective pre-crime prevention.  This strategy is framed in terms of reducing the numbers of victims of crime and harm to victims.  Police leadership are also backing a similar strategy in Saskatchewan.
• In Scotland, the police for Glasgow turned to a public health vision to reduce harm to victims.  Today, the national Violence Reduction Unit is a permanent agency of the Scottish executive established in 2006.  It has demonstrated more than 50% reductions in violent crime through a combination of smart enforcement and pre-crime prevention.
• England and Wales legislated its Youth Justice Board in 1998 that has demonstrated significant reductions in youth crime from extensive use of pre-crime prevention, known as youth inclusion programs.  Their proven success with 70 projects led to spreading the programs more widely.