I started reading Samuel Walker's Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs last night. It's the kind of book that should be required reading. Walker is a proponent of evidence-based policy making (p. xxiii), a concept I've brought up on my blog before. The book points to a number of propositions about crime that is surprising to both liberals and conservatives alike.
The evidence-based approach requires the existence of significant evidence that a policy practice actually says it does what it says it does. Policies are tested with empirical evidence through identifying a treatment group that receives a 'new' response to their crime (therapy, community based models, boot camps, etc.) and a control group that goes through the in-place response to crime. The treatment group must show a significant change in recidivism or other measures to indicate that the policy is sound. If measurements indicate that the policy may be successful, the practice must be tested in other communities to verify that it is replicable. Only then would a practice be used as a replacement for current procedure. (See Standards of Evidence-Based Crime Policy p. 10-11).
Walker primarily addresses violent crime and comes to some conclusions that may be startling to liberals and conservatives alike when it comes to firearms and violent crime.
Proposition 33. "Attempts to ban handguns, or certain kinds of guns, or bullets, are not likely to reduce serious crime."
Proposition 34. "Attempts to deny ownership of handguns to certain categories of "bad" people are not likely to reduce serious crime."
Proposition 35. "Focused, proactive enforcement strategies may be effective in reducing gun-related crime in targeted areas."
Proposition 36. "Right-to-carry laws will not reduce crime."
So, why are people still latching onto Brady-bill style programs to reduce gun ownership when such programs don't work to reduce crime, and if right-to-carry laws don't reduce crime what do they do for our society?
More to come...