Geoff Skelley’s recent column (“Crime and punishment,” Sept. 19) certainly has merit for encouraging reform in areas of the “non-violent” criminal sector. However, his methodology is flawed. Skelley fails to take into consideration many factors that balloon the statistics regarding those of lesser socio-economic standing.
Cities like New York have significantly decreased their crimes statistics in this area because they have realized that the sheer number of criminals of lower socio-economic status is due largely in part to the number of community members that fall into that identifying criteria.
New York’s crime rates for those in this category have dropped not due to more selective police enforcement or incarceration reforms, but because of increased job opportunities, community improvement programs and family planning initiatives. Certainly increased educational spending also helps these statistics, but not in the manner Skelley suggests, and it certainly is not the cure-all.
Education reform has increased significantly in our nation since the 60s and 70s, especially with the advent of such socially conscious programs as Teach for America and Boys and Girls Clubs. At the same time, the crime rate has significantly risen, suggesting that there is not a significant correlation between the two. And, as many of the crime dramas Skelley referenced might show, the most violent criminals are often repeat non-violent offenders who have been released prematurely under the programs Skelley laud.
It is hard to serve as a proponent for decreased incarceration without first also examining the costs upon society if the number of incarcerations had not occurred.
Susan Fisher
CLAS IV