‘Crime Does Pay In America'

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31785, 16 September 1968, Page 15

‘Crime Does Pay In America'

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) BOSTON, Sept. 15. The Presidential campaign debates on law and order in America these days are very odd, writes James Reston of the New York Times News Service. Everybody is talking about enforcing the law but nobody is talking about obeying it. The country reeks with lawlessness and petty chiseling, even in what are called the most respectable circles, and crime is increasing for the simple reason that it does Pay. Look at the facts: we pay about SUS4OOOm a year in the United States for all police, all courts and all correctional institutions. This is less than one-half of 1 per cent of the annual national income and less than 2 per cent of all taxes collected. For this we get about what we pay for. That is to say, we get a system that leads to arrests in only about 25 per cent of all serious crimes; we get convictions of only about 10 per cent of those arrested: and in the end those actually incarcerated amount to only about 2 per cent This makes criminal adventures in America rather easy, but the candidates have very little to say about how to correct this state of affairs. They have not come forward with proposals for tax reform to stop the widespread chiselling among the rich, or to wipe out misery among the poor. They have offered no proposals for paying for an adequately manned and educated police force. In fact, the loudest shouters for law and order are usually

the most bitter critics of the Supreme Court; and in some cases the candidates are backing programmes that may very well lead to even more disorder than we have now. Mr Richard Nixon, for example, says he is in favour of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision, but against withholding Federal funds from those local districts which defy the decision.

This would take away from Washington the only effective sanction it has against local officials who scoff at the law, and would almost certainly lead to more racial disorder than we have at the present time.

Law and order is not merely an urban, or even a national problem, but a world-wide one. It is the lawlessness and disorder in the world that is costing the United States more than SUS7O,OOOm a year

for military arms, and cutting into the appropriations for the poor and the police at home. But Mr Nixon does not make the connection between the two. He backs President Johnson’s stand on the war in Vietnam. He Is critical of the President for not spending fabulous additional sums of money to maintain a large advantage over the Soviet Union in nuclear weapons. He says he is for signing the nuclear non - proliferation treaty with the Soviet Union —but not now; some time later. And that's not all. Mr Nixon wants to strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance and give the allies a stronger voice in the negotiation of common policies to deal with common problems. But he also wants to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union, cut off aid

or credits to nations trading with North Vietnam, and place more reliance in Europe on the West Germans —all popular policies in the United States, but policies opposed by most of the rest of the allies.

Now all this is fairly good politics in the fearful atmosphere of the present election campaign. It is Mr Nixon’s own brand of "confrontation politics.” He seems to be standing up to the devils of the day—the hoodlums, the demonstrators and the Communists, all in the name of "law and order.” And it all seems quite plausible until you begin to think about it

How much order will we have between the races If Mr Nixon as President does not see that the school desegregation law is enforced? How much order will we have in the cities If we go on with the same wide gulf between the very rich and the very poor, the same unequal tax laws and inadequate police budgets, and the same moral Indifference to private and commercial cheating? How much order in the world if we have another, even more expensive round in the missile and nuclear race?

Mr Nixon’s weakness as a President is that of all the politicians who have sought the Presidency this year, with the exception of Mr George Wallace, he starts with the least trust among the young, the Negroes and the Soviets, who are causing most of the disorder.

Candidates, of course, often change as Presidents. After all, Mr Franklin Roosevelt campaigned for the Presidency In 1932 on a platform of strict economy. Nevertheless, the Nixon campaign is a thumping paradox. He is dealing with the effects of lawlessness and disorder, but not with the causes; and if he follows the policies he is proposing, the nation could easily come out in the end with less law and order than we have even now.