Crime: Credit and Blame

One thing seems clear from the thrust of comments by public officials and others in a recent news article about a crime spike in Richmond: It's not their fault. Blame lies squarely with the desperation arising out of hard economic times. Drugs and the economy are the problem. Maybe so.

Still, that's a different tune than you hear when crime is going down. Just a few months ago, one local law-enforcement leader boasted that "through a lot of regional cooperation and good police work we were able to keep . . . crime lower." Last year, officials quoted in an article about the downward trend in city homicides cited tougher prosecutions, the mayor's campaign against blight, and a willingness to testify among citizens who had grown weary of bloodshed.

So what's changed?

We're not trying to beat up on public-safety agencies, upon whom we've repeatedly heaped praise for bringing down crime rates. Law enforcement is the principal duty of local government, and it deserves a bigger share of the budget pie. Cops deserve higher pay and better equipment, too.

We also believe -- and plenty of empirical evidence indicates -- that getting tough on crime helps keep the crime rate down. When bad guys go to prison, law-abiding citizens don't suddenly start stealing cars and killing people just to keep the crime rate steady. When addicts get the firm and structured help they need from area drug courts, it interrupts the cycle of dependency. Smart strategies work. Crime is not an impersonal force of nature. It can be managed.

So perhaps the current upswing in killings and thefts might have been even worse, if leaders around the region had not adopted the approach they have. Who can say for sure? The point here isn't to guess at what might have been, but simply to note what is -- and that credit and blame for the ups and downs ought to be considered a package deal.