Economics of Crime Tom: crime and economics are two closely related disciplines. Criminology scholars rely heavily on economics although the reverse dependence does not always occur. Gary baker’s article is therefore a unique piece of literature since it intends to verify the possibility of the reverse process. The author therefore focuses on the implications of crime on economics. Mike: the authors argument concerning crime and economic is significant to both economics and criminology. To most criminals, committing crime is an economic activity. This indicates that criminals have to evaluate the benefits of engaging in a criminal activity before engaging in the actual act of crime.
Criminals also need to consider the possible punishment attached to a certain crime as possible loses on their venture or cost of doing business. John concurred with mike’s views on the relationship between crime and economics but he considered the relationship with a bias towards economics. Baker’s approach on the issue is more objective since it considers both sides of the issue. It is interesting to consider how criminals distribute their time between crime and other non-criminal activities.
Time is a resource and hence it is limited in supply. Appropriate allocation of time between various criminal and non-criminal activities indicates that criminals are more economical minded as other people in the ordinary world. I think that your view on the issue needs to be more realistic. Economy and crime occur in the real world and therefore we cannot over depend on economics or criminology. However, the two disciplines are essential in understanding human behaviour and they should be applied accordingly. The implication of crime on the country’s economy and the implication of economics on criminology are critical factors that the author of the article wishes to address.
Criminal activities such as theft and terrorism have direct impacts on the economy while the economic condition of a country has impacts on the country’s crime rate. For instance, a country with a poor economy will have a higher rate of crime than a country with flourishing economy. This is the immediate message of the article although the theoretical implication of the author concerning the relationship between economics and criminology is significant.
Jack concurred with my view on the author’s perspective concerning crime and economics. According to jack, the criminal justice system is based on economics and therefore the two subjects cannot be separated. Criminal justice involves making of logical decisions concerning acts of crime committed by criminals. This implies that any penalty that is accorded to a particular crime should be equivalent to the crime committed according to the principals of economics. A court decides on a sentence to give to an offender based on the loss caused to another person. Peter disagreed with jack concerning the economic equivalence of crime and penalties accorded to criminals.
According to peter, not all crimes can be expressed in economic terms and therefore criminal does not depend on economics. Consider crimes such as murder, it is difficult to express any possible penalty to such offenders in economic terms. Some rulings that are passed by the court depend on moral philosophy. I think that both of you are right, however it is important that you understand that Barker’s analysis does not rule out the relationship between criminology and other disciplines.
Economics is therefore an important factor in criminal justice although not sufficient.