Are Numbers Enough to Prevent Crime?

Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca said, "He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it." The topic of crime prevention is widely discussed and debated both inside and out side of the criminal justice field. The question has been asked; are more police officers the solution to the social phenomenon that is crime? While more police officers are a key ingredient to crime prevention this alone is not enough.

In a February 2, 2007 Sacramento Bee editorial the journalist suggests that while more cops are an asset to the community of Sacramento, this is not enough. According to the article, "...of the nation's 50 largest cities, Sacramento has the lowest ratio of uniformed police officers to residents." This low ratio (1.46 officers per 1,000 residents) forces the police to focus their attention on the most serious crimes such as murders, assaults and other violent crimes, while offenses such as property crimes and victimless crimes are left for the community to handle themselves. As a result the members of the community lack a sense of security and do not feel that they can depend on the police to help them.

The city of Sacramento is aiming to increase the officer to resident ratio to 2 officers per 1,000 residents, in an attempt to alleviate the city's crime problem. However, the author asserts that, "...more police alone won't solve the crime problem. Washington D.C., has 6.8 police officers per 1,000 residents, yet it remains among the nations most dangerous cities." The author then suggests that more probation officers are essential in order to tackle this dilemma. There are not enough probation officers to adequately supervise the massive amount of criminals in the community.