Criminal Solicitation, Entrapment, and the Enforcement of Law

This paper examines the optimal use of criminal solicitation as a law enforcement strategy. The benefits are greater deterrence of crime (due to the greater likelihood of apprehension), and the savings in social harm as some offenders are diverted away from committing actual crimes through solicitation. The costs are the expense of hiring undercover cops and the greater likelihood of punishment. The optimal use of solicitation balances these factors. The paper also examines the justification for the entrapment defense, which exonerates those caught in a criminal solicitation but who otherwise had no predisposition to commit a crime.

Credible Criminal Enforcement

Economic models of crime and punishment implicitly assume that the government can credibly commit to the fines, sentences, and apprehension rates it has chosen. We study the government's problem when credibility is an issue. We find that several of the standard predictions of the economic model of crime and punishment are robust to commitment, but that credibility may in some cases result in lower apprehension rates, and hence a higher crime rate, compared to the static version of the model.

Criminal Solicitation, Entrapment, and the Enforcement of Law

This paper examines the optimal use of criminal solicitation as a law enforcement strategy. The benefits are greater deterrence of crime (due to the greater likelihood of apprehension), and the savings in social harm and apprehension costs as some offenders are diverted away from committing actual crimes through solicitation. The costs are the expense of hiring undercover cops and the greater likelihood of punishment. The optimal use of solicitation balances these factors. The paper also examines the justification for, and impact of, the entrapment defense, which exonerates those caught in a solicitation but otherwise not predisposed to commit a crime.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Changes in Discrimination between 1989 and 2000: An Exploratory Study

Using paired testing data from the 1989 and 2000 Housing Discrimination Studies (HDS) and data on fair housing enforcement activities during the 1990s in the corresponding metro areas, we investigate whether 1989-2000 changes in the metropolitan incidence of racial/ethnic discrimination correlate with fair housing enforcement activity during the 1990s. We found that higher amounts of state and local enforcement activity supported by HUD through its FHIP and FHAP programs (especially the amount of dollars awarded by the courts) were consistently associated with greater declines in discrimination against black apartment-seekers and home-seekers. The evidence does not support similar conclusions for housing market discrimination against Hispanics where the level of enforcement is much lower.

Evaluation of Police Patrol Patterns

This paper describes an ArcView extension that allows police planners to design patrol districts and to evaluate them by displaying various performance measures. It uses a spatially distributed queuing system (the Larson Hypercube) to calculate expected travel times, workloads, preventive patrol frequencies, and other variables; and it allows planners to see the unavoidable tradeoffs among their objectives. Using this tool, planners can experiment with various patrol patterns to find those that best meet their Department.s goals. For example, those patrol patterns which are best in terms of average response time don.t do as well as others in terms of workload balance, or those that are best in terms of achieving a uniform response time across different parts of the city don't do as well as others in terms of minimizing inter-district dispatches. There is, of course, no perfect solution for this problem: the facts of the situation force us to balance competing goals. Described here is a way of explicitly weighting the alternative objectives.

Search, Seizure and (False?) Arrest: An Analysis of Fourth Amendment Remedies when Police can Plant Evidence

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to require that police obtain a warrant prior to search and that illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial. A consensus has developed in the law and economics literature that tort liability for police officers is a superior means of deterring unreasonable searches. We argue that this conclusion depends on the assumption of truth-seeking police, and develop a game-theoretic model to compare the two remedies when some police officers (the bad type) are willing to plant evidence in order to obtain convictions, even though other police (the good type) are not (where this type is private information). We characterize the perfect Bayesian equilibria of the asymmetric-information game between the police and a court that seeks to minimize error costs in deciding whether to convict or acquit suspects. In this framework, we show that the exclusionary rule with a warrant requirement leads to superior outcomes (relative to tort liability) in terms of truth-finding function of courts, because the warrant requirement can reduce the scope for bad types of police to plant evidence