How Game Theory is Reinventing Crime Fighting
This article discusses the surprising cost-effectiveness of community corrections as opposed to prisons as a deterrent to crime, takes a look at how crime increased in the sixties as a response to lower punishment, and analyzes the War on Drugs as an excuse to incarcerate black people using a reason other than their race. It also explains how Kennedy was successful in reducing crime in Boston. The article mentions several insightful crime prevention techniques, but the main way it connects to this class is in its discussion of the use of HOPE, which stands for Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement. According to the article, HOPE probationers are arrested for new crimes 55% less often than parolees not in HOPE, and have their probation revoked 53% less often than parolees not in HOPE.
The article notes that “Hawaii has moved from a high-violation, high-punishment equilibrium to a low-violation, low-punishment equilibrium.” The rationale behind the original, high-punishment system was that high punishment is a best response to high violation because if punishment were lower, there would be less of a disincentive to commit crime, so violations would get even higher. High violation was a best response to high punishment because if criminals violated their probation less, they would be worse off, as most of them could expect to get away with it. This is bad for criminals in the same way that it is bad for a bidder to bid less than their value in a second price auction: it provides no benefit, even though a benefit could have been achieved.
The new low-violation, low-punishment equilibrium came into existence as a result of the new low-punishment HOPE system. To keep criminals from violating their probation, they were warned about frequent, randomized drug testing, and jailed immediately for a short time in response to a positive test. In essence, fewer resources were dedicated to punishment and more to prevention. HOPE is a best response to low violations as the old, high-punishment system would lead to more violations, as described above, while HOPE would lead to the prevention of violations. Low violations are a best response to HOPE because if criminals violated their probation, they would be worse off, as they could no longer expect to get away with violations and would be getting punished more.