Most Americans assume that if you commit a serious crime, you’ll likely face consequences. The reality is starkly different. Even for the most serious crime — murder — the national clearance rate hovers around 55%. That means if you kill someone, it’s essentially a coin flip whether you’ll ever face charges. For other violent crimes like robbery, the clearance rate is less than 30% — and this only considers crimes that are reported to police (many are not). By the time you get to property crimes, the odds of getting away with it are even higher. If you steal a car, break into someone’s home, or shoplift, the chances you’ll be arrested are vanishingly small.
Recent months have seen reformers claim that murder rates are at historic lows and violent crime is falling. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump says current rates of violent crime are unacceptably high. (They’re both right: Violent crime is lower than it used to be, and it is still far too high.) This debate predictably focuses on whether and how long to lock offenders up once they are caught. But it misses a much bigger public safety issue — one that both sides should agree is a problem: how rarely serious offenders are caught in the first place.
SALESFORCE CEO WHO BACKED NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT PREVIOUSLY FUNDED PROTEST-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Policymakers typically look to harsher punishment as the way to protect communities from dangerous people. But, for most crimes, there is never any defendant to punish. For countless victims, their case is never solved. Their offender is never arrested and remains free to commit additional crimes. The single best way to reduce crime is to raise the likelihood that offenders are caught, yet we consistently underinvest in the parts of the justice system that make that possible. This realization should fundamentally reshape how we think about public safety.
Research tells us that what deters crime isn’t harsh punishment, like decadeslong sentences, but the certainty of being caught. Locking up more people either before or after trial might sound tough, but if offenders know the odds of arrest are low, those potential consequences don’t matter. What does matter is raising the likelihood that every crime will be solved quickly.
So how do we get there? By investing in the parts of the system that are consistently underfunded: investigations.
First, we need more detectives. In many departments, overburdened investigators juggle dozens of open cases, which makes thorough follow-up impossible. Hiring more people whose sole job is solving crimes would immediately increase clearance rates.
Second, we need better training. Effective investigations require specialized skills: conducting interviews, processing evidence, spotting patterns in data. These aren’t innate abilities; they’re learned. Yet training budgets are often the first to be cut. Systematic, evidence-based training would pay enormous dividends.
Third, we should make smart use of technology. DNA databases, cameras, gunshot detection systems, and drones can all help detectives close cases faster. Body-worn cameras not only improve accountability, but also capture evidence that can be crucial in court. With appropriate safeguards for privacy and civil rights, technology can be a force multiplier.
If we care about safety, solving more crimes should be our top priority. Catching dangerous people quickly prevents them from reoffending and, just as importantly, signals to others that crime carries real consequences. That deterrent effect is large and makes communities safer. Furthermore, solving crimes can disrupt retaliatory cycles of violence and improve community relations with law enforcement, creating virtuous cycles that improve safety even more over time.
Some will worry that an emphasis on catching more offenders could mean more wrongful arrests. But better investigations — and increased use of tools such as DNA and cameras — won’t simply produce more arrests, they’ll produce more accurate arrests. With many eyewitnesses too scared to come forward, technology often provides our best chance at solving serious crimes — murders, shootings, assaults, robberies — that devastate victims and erode trust in the justice system. Communities want those crimes solved. And they want the right people held accountable.
Right now, the opposite is happening. With so many crimes going unsolved, victims lose faith, offenders act with impunity, and violence persists. That’s the crisis we should be talking about.
SAN FRANCISCO DA SLAMS CYCLE OF LETTING DRUG OFFENDERS WALK FREE BEFORE TRIAL
How harshly to punish criminal offenders is a worthwhile debate. But that debate is secondary. The more important question is: Can we catch the people who commit serious crimes in the first place? Until we start investing in detectives, training, and technology, the answer will remain “not often enough.”
Public safety doesn’t hinge on how long we lock people up. It hinges on whether we catch them at all.
Jennifer Doleac is the executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures, a public policy philanthropy based in Houston, Texas.