The author of a new book titled Freakonomics contended, in a recent interview on the Today show, that the reason for the falling crime rate in the 1990s was not 'get tough' crime policies, but rather the fact that in the mid-1970s, abortion had been legalized. That meant babies that would have been born into poverty and possibly turned to crime had not been born. That reduced the number of potential criminals on the street.

             Whether or not that provocative statement is true, the debate about whether a tough crime policy or a more humanistic approach is more effective continues. Following are some of the argument on both sides, followed by a workable plan for the state of Massachusetts.

             Do tough crime policies work?.

             Some experts prefer to focus on the end-result of the criminal justice process, favoring punishment for its own sake as well as its deterrent effect. They believe the death penalty and long prison terms will cause wrongdoers to think twice. Even if the wrongdoer doesn't think twice, the long incarceration or even loss of life will provide some justice for society. It is modeled on the Old Testament "eye for an eye" idea. Usually, this belief is accompanied by one that prefers strict sentencing guidelines, removing judges' discretion, and the possibility that a judge might be too lenient in some cases.

             Opponents of this method of fighting crime pointed out that although it was popular, often getting the 'tough on crime' politicians re-elected, it was also almost prohibitively expensive. Between 1984 and 1994, Federal Bureau of Justice statistics noted that: .

             The number of convicts admitted to the nation's state and federal prisons in a year swelled 120 percent, from 246,260 to 541,434, boosting the total incarcerated 116 percent, from 419,346 to 904,647. The taxpayers' overall bill for criminal justice-police, courts, and corrections-also nearly doubled in the period, from $45.