The Left and Right Are Both Wrong About Crime

Think for yourself. Subscribe to The Free Press today

Debates over crime policy are often driven by emotion. People argue based on their feelings about police presence on their streets, or narratives about the social conditions they believe produce criminals. But Jennifer Doleac, an economist who focuses on criminal justice, contends that emotion shouldn’t be the basis of this conversation. Like sound economic policy, criminal justice reform is about incentives, trade-offs, and how people actually respond to risk.

In her new book, The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice, Jennifer argues that much of America’s crime debate is built on false assumptions. The left tends to talk about root causes, while the right tends to emphasize harsher punishment. Neither approach, she says, fits cleanly into what the evidence shows about deterrence.

In our conversation, Jennifer explains why longer prison sentences often fail to reduce crime, and why the certainty and swiftness of punishment matters far more than severity. We discuss the research on DNA databases, and how simply increasing the probability of getting caught can dramatically lower recidivism. We also examine unintended consequences, including why policies like Ban the Box, though well-intentioned, can harm the very people they aim to help.

We talk about mass incarceration, the age-crime curve, and surprising evidence that leniency for first-time offenders can reduce recidivism. Doleac cuts through the noise, arguing that real reform requires testing ideas, measuring results, and abandoning policies that feel righteous but simply don’t work.