Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 231–254 | Cite as

The Price of Justice: New National and State-Level Estimates of the Judicial and Legal Costs of Crime to Taxpayers

  • Priscillia Hunt
  • James Anderson
  • Jessica Saunders
Article

Abstract

Programs that prevent crime cost money. In order to efficiently allocate these limited funds, we need to know how much people benefit from crime prevention. While there are some comprehensive estimates of the cost of (or benefits of avoiding) crime to victims and to society at large, we have very limited crime-specific information on the legal system resources that would be freed up for other purposes across states. Using a Monte Carlo simulation approach to take into account uncertainty in the data, this study finds the national average costs to taxpayers for judicial/legal services per reported crime are likely around the following (in 2010 dollars): $22,000–$44,000 (homicide), $2000–$5000 (rape and sexual assault), $600–$1300 (robbery), $800–$2100 (aggravated assault), $200–$600 (burglary), $300–$600 (larceny/theft), and $200–$400 (motor vehicle theft). At a state-level, the costs of crime are 50 % to 70 % more or less than these national averages depending on the crime type and state. These estimates can be used to understand the level of resources spent per crime and the potential legal resources freed up for a change in reported crime rates; they are not a measure of waste or efficiency, but it is hoped this study contributes to this debate.

Keywords

Crime prevention Legal system Costs Benefits 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (Award Number 2010-DJ-BX-1672). The authors would like to thank Samantha Cherney, Michael Robbins, and Anita Szafran for their research support. Authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments and suggestions that improved this paper. The findings and conclusions expressed in this paper are only those of the authors.

Supplementary material

12103_2016_9362_MOESM1_ESM.docx (68 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 68 kb)

References

  1. Adler, M. D., & Posner, E. A. (2000). “Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic and Philosophical Perspectives.”Google Scholar
  2. Aos, S. (2015). What is the bottom line?: Role of the cost-of-crime literature. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(4), 633–638. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., Pennucci, A. (2004). “Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth: Technical Appendix.” Document No. 04-07-3901. Washington state: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  4. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Beckett, K., & Harris, A. (2011). On cash and conviction: Monetary sanctions as misguided policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 509–537. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00726.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BJS. (2014). “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2010 - Final.” Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  7. BLS. (2012). “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2012 Annual Averages, All Establishment Sizes.” Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Bragg, S. (2011). Cost accounting fundamentals: Essential concepts and examples (2nd ed.). Centennial: AccountingTools.Google Scholar
  9. Bureau, U. S. Census. (2012). “Population Estimates for the U.S., Regions, and States by Selected Age Groups and Sex.” Washington, DC: Population Estimates Program, Population Division. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/index.html.
  10. Burruss, G., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (2002). The questionable advantage of defense counsel in juvenile court*. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 37–68. doi: 10.1080/07418820200095161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, S., Crumpton, D., Finigan, M., & Waller, M. (2005). California drug courts: A methodology for determining costs and benefits. Phase II: Testing the methodology final report. Portland: NPC Research and Administrative Office of the Courts Judicial Council of California.Google Scholar
  12. Caulkins, J., & Kilmer, B. (2013). Criminal justice costs of prohibiting marijuana in California. In Something’s in the air: Race and the legalization of marijuana (pp. 13–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Caulkins, J. P., Crawford, G., Reuter P. (1993). “Simulation of Adaptive Response: A Model of Drug Interdiction.” RP-193. RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25–49. doi: 10.1007/s10940-008-9057-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, M., Miller, T., & Rossman, S. (1994). The costs and consequences of violent behavior in the United States. In A. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, volume 4: Consequences and control. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, M. A., Rust, R. T., Steen, S., & Tidd, S. T. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs*. Criminology, 42(1), 89–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00514.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deffenbacher, K. A. (2008). Estimating the impact of estimator variables on eyewitness identification: A fruitful marriage of practical problem solving and psychological theorizing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 815–826. doi: 10.1002/acp.1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farole, D., & Langton, L. (2010). “County-Based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007.” NCJ 231175. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  19. FBI. (2011a). “Crime in the United States, 2010.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
  20. FBI. (2011b). “Crime in the United States, 2010.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
  21. FBI. (2013). “Crime in the United States, 2012.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
  22. Fowles, R., & Nyström, S. (2012). “Utah Cost of Crime 2012 : Introduction to an Econometric Cost-Benefit Approach.” Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Gillespie, R. W. (1976). The production of court services: An analysis of scale effects and other factors. The Journal of Legal Studies, 5(2), 243–265. doi: 10.2307/724083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heaton, P. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: What cost-of-crime research can tell us about investing in police, OP-279-ISEC. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  25. Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). “The Price of Prisons What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers.” Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt, P., & Miles, J. (2015). An introduction to Monte Carlo simulations in criminal psychology: Applications in evaluating biased estimators for recidivism. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 5(2), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IJC (2009). Indiana judicial weighted caseload study update: Final report. Indianapolis: Indiana Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  28. Inter-Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts (1993). System of national accounts 1993. New York: Commission of the European Communities, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, and the World Bank.Google Scholar
  29. Kyckelhahn, T. (2015). “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts 2012.” NCJ 248628. Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. LaFountain, R., Schauffler, R., Strickland, S., Holt, K., Lewis, K. (2015). “Court Statistics Project DataViewer.” Last updated 12 February 2015. Court Statistics Project.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, C, & Kleiman, M. (2011). “North Carolina Superior Court Judicial Workload Assessment: Final Report.”Google Scholar
  32. Malega, R., & Cohen, T. (2013). “State Court Organization, 2011.” NCJ 242850.Google Scholar
  33. Maltz, M. D., & Targonski, J. (2002). A note on the use of county-level UCR data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(3), 297–318. doi: 10.1023/A:1016060020848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108(1–2), 98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NCSC (2007). A workload assessment study for the New Mexico trial court judiciary, New Mexico district attorney’s offices and new Mexico public defender department. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
  37. NCSC, & CSCA. (2016). “Court Statistics Project.” http://www.courtstatistics.org/.
  38. Nilsen, O. A., Raknerud, A., Rybalka, M., & Skjerpen, T. (2008). Lumpy investments, factor adjustments, and labour productivity. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(1), 104–127. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpn026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostrom, B., & Kleiman, M. (2010). “Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment: Final Report.” National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
  40. Pace, N, Ridgeway, G., Anderson, J., Fan, C.C., Horta, M. (2011). “Case Weights for Federal Defender Organizations.” RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  41. Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (2000). On the association among self-control, crime, and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 38(3), 971–982. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00913.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perry, S, & D Banks. (2011). “Prosecutors in State Courts, 2007 - Statistical Tables.” NCJ 234211. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  43. Pew Center on the States. (2009). “One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.” Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  44. Reaves, B. (2013). “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 - Statistical Tables.” NCJ 243777. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  45. Richter, M. K. (1966). Revealed preference theory. Econometrica, 34(3), 635–645. doi: 10.2307/1909773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roman, J., & Farrell, G. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis for crime prevention: Opportunity costs, routine savings and crime externalities. Evaluation for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, 14, 53–92.Google Scholar
  47. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(01), 21. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X00003846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samuelson, P. A. (1948). Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica, 15(60), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shanahan, M., & Ritter, A. (2014). Cost benefit analysis of two policy options for cannabis: status quo and legalisation. Edited by Alberico Catapano PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95569. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the gfi in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trasande, L., Thomas Zoeller, R., Hass, U., Kortenkamp, A., Grandjean, P., Myers, J. P., DiGangi, J., et al. (2015). Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 100(4), 1245–1255. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2014). “Chapter 9: Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment.” A Guide to the National Income and Product Accounts of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.Google Scholar
  53. United Nations. (2016). “The System of National Accounts (SNA).” http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp.
  54. VCJR. (2014). “Criminal Justice Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group: Final Report.” Vermont Center for Justice Research.Google Scholar
  55. Young, W., & Singer, J. (2013). Bench presence: Toward a more complete model of federal district court productivity. Penn State Law Review, 118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations