"We
evaluate the impact on crime of a localized policing experiment that
depenalized the
possession of small quantities of cannabis in the London borough of Lambeth.
Such a policy
can: (i) impact the demand for cannabis in Lambeth as users move there to
purchase cannabis;
(ii) enable the Lambeth police to reallocate effort towards other types of
crime.
We
investigate whether the depenalization policy impacts the level and composition
of crime, using
administrative records on criminal ofences by drug type, and for seven types of
non-drug
crime. We find that
depenalization in Lambeth led to significant
increases in cannabis possession
ofences that persisted well after the policy experiment ended. We find
evidence that the
policy caused the police to reallocate effort towards crimes related to the
supply of Class-A
drugs, as well as reallocating effort towards non-drug crime: there are significant reductions
in five types
of non-drug crime, and significant
improvements in police effectiveness against
such crimes as measured by arrest and clear-up rates. Despite the overall fall
in crime attributable
to the policy, we find the
total welfare of local residents likely fell, as measured by house
prices. These welfare losses are concentrated in Lambeth zip codes where the
illicit drug
market was most active. Finally, we shed light on what would be the impacts on
crime of a citywide depenalization
policy, by developing and calibrating a structural model of the market
for cannabis and crime, accounting for the behavior of police and cannabis
users. This highlights
that many of the gains of the policy can be retained, and some of the
deleterious consequences
ameliorated, if all jurisdictions
depenalized cannabis possession. These results provide
new insights for the current policy debate on the regulation of illicit drug
markets"
As the paper highlights, cannabis users represent the majority (up to 80%) of illicit drug users in the world. Any policy that would allow reallocation of resources either to other kinds of drugs or to non-drug related crime, should have a noticeable impact. And impact it had, on the one hand cannabis possession increased (to note that their definition of Crime Hotspots refers to all kinds of drug crime and not necessarily cannabis specific) due to "spill over" from other (still penalized) jurisdictions and reduced risk of possession; and on the other, police resource reallocation that led to overall reductions in crime.
The issue of jurisdictions is key here, given that, according to the paper, the negative effects of depenalization in Lambeth due to transfer of users would have been countered by a general depenalization (so the user risk equalizes and Lambeth would have not been an attractive destination). This not only applies to cannabis, but also to other products and behaviors that society may want to regulate. Even if general depenalization is not to occur, coordination between jurisdictions is advisable so compensatory or complementary policies can be adopted.
Much like in the TV series "The Wire" and their "Hamsterdam" experiment (Season 3), managing public perceptions and minimizing negative dynamics within the hotspots are paramount for the policy to be a success.
I personally have some problems with using housing prices as a proxy for welfare of local residents, but I can't offer any better indicator. It would be interesting to know further in detail the effects of this experiment had on personal welfare (criminal records, impact on sentencing, etc..), judicial costs (not only courts, but also jail and prison resources) and other (value of reduced crime, insurance, public property and resources, tax, etc..); that could be compared to the estimated welfare (housing) loss.
While the legalization/decriminalization debate has multiple spheres, cultural, medical, political, etc.. whether one is in favor or not, one need to take into account the potential impact of the decision will have, and this paper helps in that quest.
HT to Marginal Revolution
No comments:
Post a Comment