ABA          An optimum level for crime                23 July 2008

Most people, I think, would agree that the government should aim for the MINIMUM level of crime in society.  (See my ACI essay on criminal policy)  But my opinion is that they actually aim for an optimum level instead.  I don't suppose its written down in those terms, but I believe that is the actual operational policy  What do I mean by 'optimum level'?  I'll tell you!

We have a very sophisticated electorate nowadays, and a lot more people than in earlier years, think for themselves.  A number of aspects of society give people a lot of knowledge that was barred from them in times past.  The internet being just one example.  I am 82 and have seen a fair span of time, and although I was not the brightest child in the class, I was not the dimmest either.

Now as the electorate has got brighter, the government has got craftier.  Just consider (as I think the Brown Bounders have considered), that if crime was virtually non-existent, would life be any easier for them?  No, most definitely not; people would start to think more about other political matters; things like MPs expenses.  As it is, with crime at a reasonably high level, the Whitehall politicians can blame others, like Chief Constables. and keep the electorate busy with things that worry them most.  Chief Constables, of course could do better if they were given more money, but keeping a tight purse-string on the police is part of the plot.

Now on the other hand, if crime got too high, the local populace would do what they did in medieval times, they would take the law into their own hands and demonstrate that central government was just a costly waste of money.  They would end up by hanging the villains on local trees.  Now this would result in the highly vocal 'Do Good Brigade' causing the politicians even greater hassle  Certainly if it came back to the time that when local people had control of their lives, they might just start to ask why they are paying so much tax to keep central government in such splendour.

I think I have shown that it is in the interest to those highly-paid politicians at Westminster to have a crime level not too high, but not too low.  Could this be part of the thinking that brought about the increase in drinking hours?  It could be a tweak to the system to keep crime at the appropriate level when it began to seem that the police were getting on top of things.  Its a difficult question, but it is not a zero-contender for consideration.  It has not escaped my notice either that as the years go by and new techniques are found to identify criminals, the government has lowered prison sentences and other deterrents to crime.  It's all part of the policy of: 'keeping it at the right level'.  Similarly, if prison sentences were a real deterrent, crime would be a lot lower, so the sentences that judges are permitted to hand down mustn't be too severe, or the crime level would drop.