Economics of crime
Following out this line of argument, John Lott and David Mustard, in a controversial article, found that laws making it easier to get permission to legally carry a concealed firearm tended to reduce crime rates.
In this case, crime does pay and crime can be rational.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, Opportunities to make money by stealing, like opportunities to make money in other ways, attract economic resources.
The worse the punishment, the fewer criminals you have to catch in order to maintain a given level of deterrence—and catching criminals is costly. But while fines keep going up, corporate rule breaking—for example, the LIBOR banksters —seems to be booming.
Behavioural economics and crime
I am an assistant professor at Hanyang University. This conclusion must be qualified by the observation that, to reduce theft, we must spend resources on catching and punishing thieves. Criminals generally cannot pay large fines, so large punishments take the form of imprisonment or execution, which is less efficient— nobody gets what the criminal loses and someone has to pay for the jail. One final interesting question is why we have criminal law at all. We want to increase our expenditures on law enforcement only as long as one more dollar spent catching and punishing thieves reduces the net cost of theft by more than a dollar. His Web site is www. Will thieves not steal if they have better job opportunities? He may get away, and, at worst, they can hang him only once. Opponents of private ownership of handguns argue that, in violent contests between criminals and victims, the criminals usually win. Explore the impact of economics on crime Throughout the course we will examine the economics of crime - from looking at the effects of adverse economic conditions and labor markets to discussing the research contributions made by economists in the past several decades. A low punishment can take the form of a fine; what the criminal loses the court gains, so the net cost of the punishment is zero. This is relevant both to broad issues such as whether theft should be illegal and to more detailed questions, such as how to calculate the optimal punishment for a particular crime. A mugger is a mugger for the same reason I am an economist—because it is the most attractive alternative available to him. Such institutions have existed in some past societies. The process stops only when the next person who is considering becoming a thief concludes that he will be just about as well off continuing to wash dishes—that the gains from becoming a thief are about equal to the costs.
What are the costs of crime and what can be done to lower crime in a cost-effective manner? Do they respond to incentives like a consumer responding to changes in prices? But also on average, each one hundred muggings of little old ladies produce one dead mugger.
A second reason we do not want maximum punishments for all offenses is that we want to give criminals an incentive to limit their crimes.
based on 111 review