Roots, Bloody Roots: Digging for the Root Cause of the (Rise in) Crime

“Can we film the operation/Is the head dead yet/Get the widow on the set/We need dirty laundry,” sang Don Henley in 1982.  Crime seems to grab T.V. viewers’ attention more than anything else.  What do the stats here in San Antonio say?

As Mr. Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” continues, “kick ‘em when they’re up/kick ‘em when they’re down”: they’re all over the place in the last dozen years.  A couple of isolated spots do pop out. 

Violent crime shot up 28% and 26% in 2013 and 2016, respectively.  Then it took a 17% dip in 2018, accompanied with a 9% drop in property crime.  It’s notable that the economy started growing more the year before, both here and in the broader U.S. 

When more people are prospering, fewer are committing crimes. 

But then they rose again in 2019: 13% for violent crime, 10% for property crime.  Incidentally, starting in 2018 was Bexar County’s cite and release program (CR).

Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe it’s not.  Not everything can be perfectly predicted with forecasts and models and whatnot.  Intuition and human nature are useful indicators though.

Take that economic growth.  There weren’t large-scale measures or actions taken that had time to fully wend their way through the system to have positive effect.  But a different tone had taken power. 

It was one that said to business “we will get in your way less.” Signals were sent, and those matter, particularly for investment.  Investment leads to hiring.  And if more people are getting hired, fewer people are committing crimes.

The CR program sent a different signal … kinda.  The part that deals with marijuana for example, could arguably be augmented by other voluntary and/or consensual activities. 

What is the logical basis for stripping someone of their freedom or property when what they do has no direct negative effect on anyone else?  If there is no collateral damage, where is the wrongdoing?

“Because others thought/think so and laws were written” is wholly insufficient and borderline disrespectful to people minding their own business.

What IS clearly disrespectful however, is one party assaulting anther.  That includes minor aggressions like defacing another’s property.

Not only should such infractions be removed from any CR, but punishment by fine should be abolished.  Otherwise, it amounts to little more than a rich man’s ‘crime’.  Restitution for the victim should factor in, whether it takes financial form, returning goods or services stolen, and/or the labor required to repair the vandalism, graffiti, or the like.

Incarceration should be mandatory, with time behind bars proportionate to the severity of the crime. Is there a greater disincentive to bad behavior than a night in the pokey?

Judges who recognize this rational difference between real crimes and fake crimes should be the only ones on the bench, whether appointed or elected.  As it is, the faulty half of the CR is subtly wreaking havoc.

Those with great confidence in the ability of government to do good put outsized faith in bad actors who clearly lack good intentions.  Not only does this include a blind spot to fraudsters who seize on public spending, but also those who see a criminal justice system with soft spots.

When you excuse minor criminal acts (remember: the real kind, not the fake kind), you invite more of it, oftentimes on a larger scale.

Citizens are starting to regret this approach.  None other than San Francisco recalled their district attorney earlier this year.  The broader movement of these lenient approaches is showing signs of weakening. 

Preliminary reports this year show a spike in homicides and aggravated assault to the tune of 27% each.  Are Bexar County residents feeling a similar sense of buyer’s remorse?  Would a new district attorney revamp the CR to be more respectful of freedom and property? 

Only the candidates and the voter know.