Why it's not prime time for
crime
A drop in criminal offences has a lot to do with
heroin, and a little to do with heroes, writes Ross Gittins.
The crime wave is receding. There's now no doubt about it. The tide
turned in 2001 and there's been a general decline in crime each year
since then.
The fall is occurring in every state, but seems concentrated in the
bigger cities. If this comes as news to you, however, you could be
forgiven. For the most part, it's not news the media have been
trumpeting. Receding crime waves aren't good for business (the
media's business, that is).
The figures for recorded crime in 2004 in this state were issued by
the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research on Monday. They
showed that in the 24 months to December last year, recorded crime
fell in nine of the 16 major categories.
In the remaining seven categories — including
murder and the various forms of assault — the level of crime was
stable. So it's predominantly a fall in crime against property.
In those 24 months, and in round figures, theft of motor vehicles
fell by 5 per cent. The crimes of stealing from motor vehicles,
stealing from homes, breaking and entering homes, and robbery with a
weapon other than a firearm are each down by about 10 per cent.
The crimes of stealing from the person (including pickpocketing and
bag-snatching without violence), shoplifting, breaking and entering
a building other than a home, and robbery without a weapon (mugging)
are each down by about 20 per cent.
Looking at a longer period, from January 2001 to September 2004, the
overall level of property crime in NSW fell by 46 per cent and is
below what it was in the mid-1990s.
Well, that's great news. But the obvious question
is, why? Researchers at the bureau — Steve Moffatt, Don Weatherburn
and Neil Donnelly — have conducted a study of the decline's causes.
It began after a significant fall in the availability of heroin in
early 2001 and it seems this is a major part of the explanation. At
that time, the price of heroin in Sydney rose by 75 per cent to $380
a gram and the purity of heroin on the street fell from 70 per cent
to about 30 per cent. So, effectively, the price of heroin roughly
quadrupled.
There followed an immediate drop in the number of fatal heroin
overdoses, which, along with other evidence, suggests a decline in
the consumption of the drug prompted by the huge rise in its price.
Because the decline in crime began at about the same time as the
heroin drought and fall in consumption, and because heroin users
often resort to property crime — particularly robbery — to finance
their purchases, it's reasonable to conclude that the fall in heroin
consumption does a lot to explain the decline in crime.
Some further circumstantial evidence: the drop in property crime has
been concentrated in urban areas, where heroin dependence is most
prevalent.
But there has to be more to it, particularly
because property crime rates continued falling long after heroin
consumption had stabilised at a lower level.
One wrinkle is that there was a brief jump in the number of
robberies immediately after the onset of the heroin shortage. And
this spike coincided with a sharp rise in the percentage of deaths,
from suspected overdose, in Sydney of people who tested positive for
cocaine.
Cocaine tends to be injected more frequently than heroin, making the
habit much more expensive to maintain. And prolonged frequent use of
cocaine tends to make users more violent.
But before long cocaine, too, became more costly and harder to get.
Finally, about a year after the heroin shortage began, the number of
re-registrations for methadone treatment increased significantly.
And research confirms that addicts offend at a lower rate when
they're in methadone maintenance treatment.
Putting it all together, it seems that when the shortage of heroin
made it more expensive, some users briefly turned to cocaine and
undertook more robberies to cover its higher cost. When the price of
cocaine rose also, some may have moved back onto methadone, causing
a further decline in property crime.
But what about the wider role of policing and the
courts — do they get any of the credit? A little. The study revealed
no increase in the number of suspected offenders charged with
robbery or burglary. But it did find an increase in the proportion
of convicted burglars given a jail sentence. It also found that
average jail sentences lengthened for both burglary and robbery.
Statistical tests couldn't detect any benefit from the longer
sentences for robbery, but they did find that greater use of
imprisonment for burglary offenders contributed to the decline in
crime.
Note, however, that this may have been less of a deterrent effect
than an “incapacitation effect”. That is, offenders were able to
burgle fewer homes because they spent more time behind bars.
Of course, it costs the taxpayer a bundle to keep offenders locked
up, so a separate question is whether dishing out more and longer
sentences is a cost-effective way of controlling crime.
Finally, the strong growth in the economy seemed to help reduce
crime. After controlling for all the other factors, tests showed
contributions from the growth in real incomes and from the fall in
long-term unemployment among younger males.
Not all property crime is drug-related. Many offenders become
involved in crime simply because it provides a useful source of
additional income. This is particularly true of burglary, which
attracts a large number of casual opportunists.
Studies show that young people from families with a low
socio-economic status tend to commit property crime at a higher rate
during periods of unemployment than when they have jobs.
But to get back to drugs, it's worth noting that reducing the supply
and increasing the cost of heroin is more likely to reduce crime
when governments also ensure addicts are easily able to find a path
out of drug use and into treatment.
Ross Gittins
20 April 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Ross-Gittins/Why-its-not-prime-time-for-crime/2005/04/19/1113854198289.html?oneclick=true
