The Price of Justice: New National and State-Level Estimates of the Judicial and Legal Costs of Crime to Taxpayers
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.
KeywordsCrime prevention Legal system Costs Benefits
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.
- Adler, M. D., & Posner, E. A. (2000). “Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic and Philosophical Perspectives.”Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- BJS. (2014). “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2010 - Final.” Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- BLS. (2012). “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2012 Annual Averages, All Establishment Sizes.” Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
- Bragg, S. (2011). Cost accounting fundamentals: Essential concepts and examples (2nd ed.). Centennial: AccountingTools.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Caulkins, J. P., Crawford, G., Reuter P. (1993). “Simulation of Adaptive Response: A Model of Drug Interdiction.” RP-193. RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
- 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
- Farole, D., & Langton, L. (2010). “County-Based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007.” NCJ 231175. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- FBI. (2011a). “Crime in the United States, 2010.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
- FBI. (2011b). “Crime in the United States, 2010.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
- FBI. (2013). “Crime in the United States, 2012.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). “The Price of Prisons What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers.” Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- IJC (2009). Indiana judicial weighted caseload study update: Final report. Indianapolis: Indiana Judicial Center.Google Scholar
- 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
- Kyckelhahn, T. (2015). “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts 2012.” NCJ 248628. Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lee, C, & Kleiman, M. (2011). “North Carolina Superior Court Judicial Workload Assessment: Final Report.”Google Scholar
- Malega, R., & Cohen, T. (2013). “State Court Organization, 2011.” NCJ 242850.Google Scholar
- 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
- NCSC, & CSCA. (2016). “Court Statistics Project.” http://www.courtstatistics.org/.
- Ostrom, B., & Kleiman, M. (2010). “Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment: Final Report.” National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
- Pace, N, Ridgeway, G., Anderson, J., Fan, C.C., Horta, M. (2011). “Case Weights for Federal Defender Organizations.” RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pew Center on the States. (2009). “One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.” Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Reaves, B. (2013). “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 - Statistical Tables.” NCJ 243777. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- United Nations. (2016). “The System of National Accounts (SNA).” http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp.
- VCJR. (2014). “Criminal Justice Consensus Cost-Benefit Working Group: Final Report.” Vermont Center for Justice Research.Google Scholar
- Young, W., & Singer, J. (2013). Bench presence: Toward a more complete model of federal district court productivity. Penn State Law Review, 118.Google Scholar