Reducing Risks: How Safe Is Safe Enough?

Reducing Risks: How Safe Is Safe Enough?

When social scientists estimate risks, they are pre- dicting how many people will experience unwanted incidents. Statistical concepts underlying risk estimates can be difficult to grasp. Only three distinct probabilities can be readily understood: “0,” which signifies that an event is impossible; “1,” which means that an event is inevitable; and “0.5,” which indicates a toss-up, or a 50–50 chance (as in seeking “heads” when flipping a coin). But risks that are 0.1 (1 in 10) or 0.01 (1 in 100) or 0.001 (1 in 1,000) are harder to fathom or evaluate. If the odds of something happening were one in a million, statisticians would advise people not to worry about it (or count on it if the event is desir- able, such as winning a lottery). But when two or three people in every thousand are robbed each year, what importance should be placed on the risk of robbery when planning one’s daily schedule? How much preparation and anxiety would be

172 CH APT ER 5

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203

rational in the face of these odds? What sacrifices would be appropriate in terms of forgoing necessary or welcomed activities (such as taking evening clas- ses or watching the sun set on a deserted beach)? At what point does disregarding risks and ignoring pre- cautions become foolhardy?

In general, it is safer to stay at home, especially at night; to travel in pairs or groups and use cars or taxis; to avoid public spaces, unfamiliar places, and complete strangers; to steer clear of known hot spots and dangerous characters; and to not let down one’s guard by becoming intoxicated or dis- tracted. Those precautions are a price that many older people are willing to pay to avoid putting themselves in harm’s way. But many teenagers and young adults reject such restrictions in their quest for entertainment and nightlife (see Felson, 1997; Mustaine and Tewksbury, 1998a).

To illustrate the nature of the dilemma, consider the much lower robbery rate of the elderly compared to people in their early twenties, even though senior citizens are presumed to be especially vulnerable to the young men who use force to steal. This apparent par- adox can be explained by noting that older people usually incorporate many risk-reduction strategies into their lifestyles and routine activities to the point that these self-imposed restrictions become second nature. For instance, to find young adults out after midnight drinking in bars, nightclubs, and gambling casinos seems normal; to encounter elderly people in such settings at those hours is surprising.Teenagers and young adults ride home alone on public transportation late at night; old people rarely do.

Since entire demographic groups experience very different rates of victimization for robbery and murder, as documented in Chapter 4, risk- reduction strategies seem to work. But it is difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of specific precau- tions, such as keeping away from known hot spots and volatile people who engage in deviant lifestyles. It is hard to pinpoint particular instances in which these strategies clearly have prevented a crime from taking place. Therefore, whether to sacrifice certain freedoms and pleasures for enhanced safety is a trade-off that each person must confront and weigh. The proper balance between safety and

risk is ultimately a personal decision. But it is also a matter of public debate. In general, more protec- tion can be secured by greater expenditure. Dangers can be reduced if individuals and groups are willing to pay the price for more police patrols, improved lighting, surveillance cameras, and other security measures. However, a demand for absolute safety (zero risk) is irrational in statistical terms. Probabili- ties of unwanted events can be reduced but never entirely eliminated. At some point, it is reasonable for a person to declare that the odds pose an accept- able risk (Lynn, 1981). Furthermore, many people lack the opportunities and resources to reduce the risks they face. They are unable to alter their means of travel, their hours of work, the schools their children attend, or the neighborhoods in which they live. Many of the suggestions and stern admonitions about dos and don’ts directed at the general public turn out to be impractical, unrealis- tic, and out of reach for such people.

In economics, a cost–benefit analysis can determine the point of diminishing returns, when additional outlays to attempt to achieve a goal exceed the value or return on that investment. Obviously, the price of a second lock on a door is outweighed by its benefit if the door comes with a standard lock that is flimsy. Just as obviously, adding a third lock to a door that already has two imposes more costs than benefits, especially if the hinges are weak.

But what about comparisons that are less clear- cut? What about installing floodlights and a burglar alarm? How about stepped up police patrols in a neighborhood plagued by break-ins? At what point are there too many police officers to justify their sala- ries? Can the pain and suffering of victims or the pub- lic’s fear of street crime (or terrorism) be converted by some formula to determine how much taxpayers or consumers should spend on security expenses? How much is peace of mind worth, in terms of money? “How safe is safe enough?” turns out to be a value judgment that each person must grapple with.

Place Your Order Here!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *