Governor's Crime Commission juvenile age study : a study of the impact of expanding the jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention : final report to the Governor of North Carolina and to the 2009 session of the General A - Page 33 |
Previous | 33 of 227 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
24
Qualitative benefits and costs related to incidence of crime would be affected by a change to the
age of juvenile court jurisdiction. These costs, which could not be included in the cost-benefit
analysis, include the following:
Precautionary behavior: Citizens may alter their behavior to reduce the risk of being
victims of crime. Such behavior may include taking a circuitous route to a destination to
avoid unsafe parts of town or deciding not to leave the house at night to meet friends or
go to dinner.
Fear of crime: The fear of crime itself imposes a negative effect on a person. The quality
of life of potential victims is diminished by the fear of crime. The fear of crime does not
necessarily correlate with changes in arrests rates.
Community defense expenditures: The residents in a neighborhood may organize
themselves and hire security personnel to patrol their neighborhood. Although these are
tangible costs, identifying the neighborhoods with private patrols and collecting financial
information from them is an impractical exercise.
Government crime prevention activity: Crime generates prevention responses at the
local, state, and federal levels. Federal and state grants fund local programs aimed at
preventing crime. Some of these programs could include Head Start and other early child
development programs. These are secondary impacts from a change in crime rates and
the connection between changes in crime rates and the prevalence of these programs is
not established.
Miscarriages of justice: With every crime committed there is a possibility that the wrong
person may be accused and in some cases convicted of it. Any reduction in recidivism
reduces this possibility and thereby generates a benefit to society, albeit one that is
difficult to measure.
The preceding list includes costs and benefits that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. The
impediment to quantifying these benefits and costs can come from inadequate data availability,
the impracticality of collecting the data, or the absence of any general agreement among
researchers as to what constitutes a reliable and sound approach to making such a calculation.
Weighing the importance of non-quantifiable costs and benefits is a task best left to elected
officials. Many decisions of government are made without an appeal to quantifiable costs and
benefits, but they are deemed good decisions nevertheless. The intangible benefits to society
derived from the reduction in recidivism may be sufficient to make the additional investment in
the criminal justice system worthwhile; however, making such a judgment is outside the scope of
this report.
Additionally, there are perceived benefits and costs that would result from a change to juvenile
court jurisdiction that are not included in the analysis. Some of these benefits and costs can be
quantified but their occurrence cannot be attributed to the implementation of a change to juvenile
jurisdiction.
Object Description
Description
| Title | Governor's Crime Commission juvenile age study : a study of the impact of expanding the jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention : final report to the Governor of North Carolina and to the 2009 session of the General A - Page 33 |
| Full Text | 24 Qualitative benefits and costs related to incidence of crime would be affected by a change to the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. These costs, which could not be included in the cost-benefit analysis, include the following: Precautionary behavior: Citizens may alter their behavior to reduce the risk of being victims of crime. Such behavior may include taking a circuitous route to a destination to avoid unsafe parts of town or deciding not to leave the house at night to meet friends or go to dinner. Fear of crime: The fear of crime itself imposes a negative effect on a person. The quality of life of potential victims is diminished by the fear of crime. The fear of crime does not necessarily correlate with changes in arrests rates. Community defense expenditures: The residents in a neighborhood may organize themselves and hire security personnel to patrol their neighborhood. Although these are tangible costs, identifying the neighborhoods with private patrols and collecting financial information from them is an impractical exercise. Government crime prevention activity: Crime generates prevention responses at the local, state, and federal levels. Federal and state grants fund local programs aimed at preventing crime. Some of these programs could include Head Start and other early child development programs. These are secondary impacts from a change in crime rates and the connection between changes in crime rates and the prevalence of these programs is not established. Miscarriages of justice: With every crime committed there is a possibility that the wrong person may be accused and in some cases convicted of it. Any reduction in recidivism reduces this possibility and thereby generates a benefit to society, albeit one that is difficult to measure. The preceding list includes costs and benefits that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. The impediment to quantifying these benefits and costs can come from inadequate data availability, the impracticality of collecting the data, or the absence of any general agreement among researchers as to what constitutes a reliable and sound approach to making such a calculation. Weighing the importance of non-quantifiable costs and benefits is a task best left to elected officials. Many decisions of government are made without an appeal to quantifiable costs and benefits, but they are deemed good decisions nevertheless. The intangible benefits to society derived from the reduction in recidivism may be sufficient to make the additional investment in the criminal justice system worthwhile; however, making such a judgment is outside the scope of this report. Additionally, there are perceived benefits and costs that would result from a change to juvenile court jurisdiction that are not included in the analysis. Some of these benefits and costs can be quantified but their occurrence cannot be attributed to the implementation of a change to juvenile jurisdiction. |
