Soft-on-crime policies are bad for business

OPINION:

Blue states seem to have found their latest darling: criminals.

Across America, rogue prosecutors and jurors are on a mission to disprove Adam Smith’s dictum that “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” Many jurisdictions have prioritized leniency toward offenders, risking public safety and economic vitality.

Soft-on-crime policies are physically harmful to citizens. Every human being possesses intrinsic worth and dignity by virtue of their humanity. Violent crime and policies that release criminals back onto the streets directly threaten this dignity.

The victimization leaves communities devastated and cost the hospital system $18.3 billion in 2023.

Beyond the profound human toll, crime imposes substantial economic burdens on businesses and consumers. Comprehensive estimates place the total annual cost of crime in the United States at $4.7 trillion to $5.8 trillion — encompassing victim losses, justice system expenses, private deterrence and lost productivity.

In 2022, retail crime cost businesses more than $112 billion, with ripple effects on jobs and wages. American retailers reported that losses from shoplifting alone exceeded $45 billion.

Crime is a catastrophic de facto tax on businesses, forcing them to raise prices, invest in costly security measures or close locations.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the House Small Business Committee in December that more than 56% of small businesses have been affected by theft. Criminal pressures exacerbate challenges for small enterprises, which often lack the resources to absorb repeated losses.

Crime also depresses property values, which are among the most significant assets for American families. A 10% reduction in homicides can yield a 0.83% increase in property values, according to the Center for American Progress.

The proximity of sexual offenders correlates with 2% to 4% lower home values nearby, according to economic studies published in the American Economic Review and the Journal of Urban Economics.

When business and asset prices suffer from crime, the basic functions of markets become more difficult. High-crime areas deter investment, reduce consumer foot traffic and hinder market participation as residents and visitors prioritize safety over economic activity.

These dynamics create self-reinforcing cycles: Consumers and businesses withdraw from affected neighborhoods, job opportunities diminish, and residents face heightened risks of entering cycles of poverty and violence.

New York City of the 1980s exemplified the consequences of unchecked crime, with violence rates among the highest in the developed world. The turnaround under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani coincided with dramatic reductions in crime.

Mr. Giuliani’s broken-windows policy, a proactive policing approach focused on quality-of-life offenses, came down hard on violent and petty crime and supported the New York Police Department. Under Mr. Giuliani, violent crime fell more than 56% and property crime dropped 65%.

Other analyses confirm the value of proactive enforcement. One study estimated that the marginal social benefit of an additional police officer exceeds $185,000 to $350,000 annually.

In contrast, permissive policies have serious negative implications. In 2022, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg directed his office not to prosecute prostitution, resisting arrest and other offenses, among other leniency measures. This trend continues with Marxist Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s plans to divert calls from the NYPD to social workers — all while the city experiences increased crime.

The bottom line: These wounds are self-inflicted. Politicians across America are incentivizing criminality through a lenient stance on public safety.

Take Chicago’s skyrocketing vehicular theft and carjacking rates after experimenting with lighter crime approaches. National car thefts cost $20 billion annually.

Or Colorado’s insurance premiums, which were inflated by an average of $239 per year per household after the state reduced penalties for motor vehicle theft.

In the District of Columbia, some of the most outrageous crime policies are in effect, including no mandatory sentencing guidelines and age-related leniency for offenders as old as 24. Juvenile mobs engaging in “teen takeovers” terrorize businesses.

Although the Trump administration has made significant efforts to clean up crime with the National Guard, charging youth offenders is an area in which D.C. officials have near-total control.

With no accountability, felons are empowered to offend. Mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws build on a long line of deterrence measures — such as California’s Proposition 8 in 1982, which added sentence enhancements for serious offenses and led to eligible crimes falling 20% to 40% within three years. Imposing real consequences is essential to reducing recidivism.

The evidence is clear: When offenders face predictable accountability and the rule of law is upheld, incentives for behavior change. Leniency, which empowers repeat criminals, imposes disproportionate harm on communities as everyday residents, small businesses and families are forced to absorb economic and physical losses.

Strong, accountable policing combined with commonsense prosecution and impartial judges is essential to holding career criminals accountable and maintaining public safety. Policies rooted in deterrence, a red-state specialty, have historically slashed crime rates and enabled socioeconomic flourishing.

The best hope for blue-state residents concerned about public safety and economic vitality may be moving across state lines.

• Nicole Huyer is a senior research associate in The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Christopher Lynch is a former member of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program.