Crime Deterrence: Evidence From the London 2011 Riots

Abstract

Significant riots occurred in London in August 2011. The riots took place in highly localised geographical areas, with crime going up hugely in the affected sub-wards. The criminal justice response was to make sentencing for rioters much more severe. We show a significant drop in riot crimes across London in the six months after the riots, consistent with a deterrence effect from the tougher sentencing. More evidence of general deterrence comes from the observation that crime also fell in the post-riot aftermath in areas where rioting did not take place.A fundamental question in economics of crime research and policy is whether tougher sentencing deters crime. In various guises, the question has been around a long time, with the notion in the economics of crime literature being that tougher sentences, and maybe sending more people to jail or prison, have scope to deter crime by individuals who would, in the presence of weaker sanctions, engage in crime. 1 However, persuasive empirical evidence on the question is hard to find. This is, at least in part, because tougher sentencing does not usually arise randomly but occurs in response to crime increases that develop over time. For example, if criminal behaviour has been persistently rising over time and reaches a level that the criminal authorities deem to be too high, then sentencing may get tougher. Evaluating the possible deterrence effects that may ensue then becomes difficult, because the sentencing change was determined by the prior trend in crime.In this article, we take a different route to study this question. In August 2011, London experienced some of the worst riots in its history. After these riots, large numbers of rioters were convicted and given much harsher sentences than for people convicted of the same kinds of crimes before the riots occurred. However, unlike the example given in the previous paragraph, the riot period was very short and mostly opportunist in nature. As we will show below, the riots occurred in 'hot spots' that were not experiencing differential rises in crime relative to non-riot areas prior to the riots happening. The subsequent harsh sentencing that ensued was not anticipated at the time (especially given the celerity with which the criminal justice system responded) and thus we think offers a credible setting to look for deterrence effects on crime that may have ensued in the post-riot time period.

Frontiers in the economics of crime: lessons for Latin America and the Caribbean

“…Drago et al (2009) assess the impact of an increase in sentence time in the context of the large Italian amnesty of 2006 and estimate that when expected sentences are increased by 25%, the propensity to re-offend in seven months decreases by approximately 18%. Bell et al (2014) show that significant increases in sentencing severity, induced by the London riots of August 2011, led to a 13% decline in riot crimes in non-riot sub-wards. Lee and McCrary (2009), however, exploit the fact that young offenders are legally treated as adults (and face longer lengths of incarceration) the day they turn 18 and estimate an elasticity of crime with respect to sentence lengths of only about − 0.05.…”

Exploring the punitive surge: Crown Court sentencing practices before and after the 2011 English riots

“…The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published aggregate comparisons of sentencing trends for the post-riot period and a year before the riots (see 2012a;2012b) and revealed an increase in sentence length. This finding was replicated in London by Bell et al (2014). Lightowlers and Quirk (2015) analysed data from Greater Manchester while the only quantitative assessment of scale of the increase in severity in sentencing practice relating to the disorder of summer 2011 is reported by Bell et al (2014).…”

“…This finding was replicated in London by Bell et al (2014). Lightowlers and Quirk (2015) analysed data from Greater Manchester while the only quantitative assessment of scale of the increase in severity in sentencing practice relating to the disorder of summer 2011 is reported by Bell et al (2014). Lowenstein (2016) reports a qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks related to riot cases.…”

Freedom of Information (FOI) as a data collection tool for social scientists

“…pone.0228392 relevant characteristics (for a more detailed discussion, see [5]). [6], who examined the impact of tougher sentencing on crime, required crime and police data at highly localised geographical areas, which are typically not provided in published statistics. [7] exploited timing of alcohol consumption and required detailed information on the time when crimes are committed.…”