Right data

National Review, Feb 10, 1997 by Ed Rubenstein

CRIME is down. Much has been made of that, especially in big cities like New York. For the nation, FBI statistics show a 9 per cent decline in the crime rate between 1990 and 1995; preliminary data indicate another drop in the first six months of 1996.

Criminologists are reaching for explanations. Some credit a change in drug habits, with crack users switching to heroin, which does not induce violent behavior and is fairly cheap these days. Former New York Police Commissioner William Bratton insists policing is more effective. Clamping down on minor offenses -- the Broken Window thesis -- seems to have squelched more serious crime.

But demographic trends clearly explain much. Crime rates exploded in the 1960s and 1970s as baby-boomers began to enter the high-crime ages. After rising nearly 80 per cent between 1960 and 1980, the number of white males in high-crime ages started to decline. This demographic shift contributed to a modest decline in crime rates. Then, in the 1990s, the number of non-white males in these age groups also started to fall; crime fell sharply.

Unfortunately for the crime picture, younger boomers started having lots of babies in the mid 1980s. The breeding blip means that we now have 40 million children under ten -- the largest number in that age group in more than a generation. By 2010, according to Census Bureau estimates, the population of males in high-crime ages will be 21.9 million, or 16 per cent higher than at the peak of the crime wave in 1990. According to John DiIulio, we can expect at least 6 per cent of these young males (1.3 million) to become high-rate offenders and account for half of all serious crimes committed by their age group.

Of course, demography needn't be destiny. Kids could learn to just say no. The bad news, however, is that today's smaller cohort of male youth is more prone to crime than its elders were at the same age. Among non-white males under 18, for instance, aggravated-assault rates are 80 per cent higher now than a decade ago; rates have continued up over the past few years even as the overall crime rate has declined.

As for incarceration, the prison population has more than tripled since 1980, to 1.1 million. Average prison stays have declined, however. As a result, the number of ex-prisoners walking the streets on parole or probation has increased from 1.3 million in 1980 to nearly 4 million. About a third of all those arrested for violent crimes are on probation, parole, or pre-trial release at the time of their arrest.

The fact is, only a small fraction of violent criminals ever end up in prison. DiIulio does the math: 10.3 million violent crimes in 1992; 641,000 arrests; 165,000 convictions; after plea bargaining, 100,000 sent to prison. In effect, only one person is imprisoned for every 100 episodes of violent crime. On average, it costs about $25,000 a year to keep a convict in prison. Building a maximum-security prison can run $100,000 a bed. On the other hand, a Justice Department report released in 1996 put the cost of crime at $450 million per year in medical bills, lost days from work, emotional trauma -- and lost life. Other research shows that incarcerating one additional prisoner prevents between 12 and 21 additional crimes a year. Demographic trends aside, a convincing argument can be made for building more prisons.

DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMITE?

        Crime Rate*      Males in High-Crime
        All    Violent   Ages (15 to 24)
        Crimes Crimes    White     Non-White
1960    1,123  159       10.4 mil. 1.5 mil.
1980    5,950  597       18.1      3.4
1990    5,820  732       14.2      4.6
1995    5,278  685       14.7      3.6
2000e   ?      ?         15.5      4.0
2010e   ?      ?         17.0      4.9
* Reported crimes per 100,000 inhabitants.
Sources: FBI, Census Bureau.