Could clearance rates be key to addressing criminal justice failures? – Reason Foundation

Report on Criminal Justice System Efficacy and Sustainable Development Goal 16

Introduction: Clearance Rates as a Metric for Justice and Institutional Strength

The effectiveness of a nation’s criminal justice system is a cornerstone of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. A critical, yet often overlooked, metric for evaluating this effectiveness is the crime clearance rate—the percentage of reported crimes that result in an arrest. This report analyzes U.S. clearance rates, particularly for violent crimes, as an indicator of progress toward SDG 16, highlighting a significant gap between public investment and institutional performance.

Analysis of U.S. Crime Clearance Rate Trends

A Decline in Institutional Performance and Public Safety

The ability of justice institutions to solve violent crimes is fundamental to SDG 16.1 (significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates). However, historical data reveals a sustained decline in the performance of U.S. law enforcement in this area.

• In the mid-1960s, over 90% of homicides were cleared nationally.
• By 2022, the homicide clearance rate had fallen to just over 50%.
• The overall clearance rate for violent crimes in 2022 was only 37%, with property crime clearance rates even lower at 12.1%.

These historically low figures indicate a weakening of institutional capacity to provide justice and security, directly challenging the targets set forth in SDG 16.

Disparity Between Financial Investment and Outcomes

The decline in clearance rates has occurred despite substantial increases in public expenditure on policing, raising questions about the efficiency and accountability of these institutions (SDG 16.6). This disparity suggests that increased funding alone does not guarantee progress towards building a more effective justice system.

• From 1977 to 2021, inflation-adjusted state and local government spending on police increased by 189%, from $47 billion to $135 billion.
• A study of over 100 U.S. cities and counties found that 83% increased police spending by at least 2% in 2022 compared to 2019.

Implications for Sustainable and Inclusive Societies

Erosion of Public Safety and Community Well-being (SDG 11)

The failure to apprehend perpetrators of violent crime directly undermines SDG 11 (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable). When a significant portion of violent offenses go unsolved, perpetrators remain in communities, posing an ongoing threat to public safety. This erodes public trust in institutions and the rule of law, hindering the development of safe and inclusive communities.

Compromised Deterrence and the Rule of Law (SDG 16.3)

Promoting the rule of law at national and international levels and ensuring equal access to justice for all (SDG 16.3) is contingent on an effective justice system. Research indicates that the certainty of being caught is a more powerful deterrent than the severity of punishment. Persistently low clearance rates weaken this deterrent effect.

• When nearly half of murderers and the vast majority of perpetrators of other violent and property crimes are not apprehended, the perceived risk of consequences diminishes.
• This failure to hold individuals accountable undermines the very foundation of the rule of law that SDG 16 seeks to strengthen.

Neglect of Victims and Access to Justice

Low clearance rates represent a systemic failure to provide justice for victims of crime. The lack of resolution denies victims closure and legal recourse, conflicting with the principle of ensuring access to justice for all. Furthermore, victim surveys indicate a preference for crime prevention strategies over punitive measures such as long prison sentences, aligning with a more sustainable and proactive approach to public safety.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Aligning with SDG 16

The declining trend in U.S. crime clearance rates signals a critical challenge to achieving the targets of SDG 16. It reflects a justice system that is becoming less effective despite growing financial investment. To build more peaceful, just, and strong institutions, a strategic shift in focus is required.

1. Elevate Clearance Rates as a Key Performance Indicator: Public and governmental focus should be placed on clearance rates as a primary measure of the effectiveness and accountability of justice institutions.
2. Promote Evidence-Based Institutional Reform: Resources should be directed toward strategies proven to improve investigative outcomes, rather than relying solely on increased overall spending.
3. Strengthen the Rule of Law Through Effective Enforcement: Improving the likelihood that perpetrators are identified and arrested is essential for enhancing deterrence, ensuring public safety, and reinforcing public trust in the justice system.
4. Center Justice Policies on Victim Needs and Prevention: Align criminal justice reform with the preferences of crime survivors and the broader goals of sustainable development by prioritizing crime prevention and ensuring effective resolution for victims.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary SDG addressed in the article is:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

  Explanation: The article’s entire focus is on the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, a core component of SDG 16. It discusses the failure of institutions (police agencies) to solve violent crimes, which undermines public safety, the rule of law, and justice for victims. The text explicitly mentions a “faltering system that has gotten more expensive and, arguably, less effective at protecting public safety,” directly linking to the goal of building effective, accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific targets under SDG 16 are relevant:

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   Explanation: The article is centered on the failure to solve violent crimes and homicides. It states that when a perpetrator “remains unidentified and loose in the community,” they are “able to commit further crimes.” This failure to hold perpetrators accountable directly hinders efforts to reduce violence and related deaths. The decades-long slide in homicide clearance rates, from “more than 90% of murders were solved nationally” in the mid-1960s to “just over half” in 2022, shows a weakening capacity to address the most severe forms of violence.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   Explanation: The article argues that low clearance rates can lead to “rampant disrespect for the law.” When a large percentage of crimes, especially violent ones, go unsolved, it erodes the rule of law. Furthermore, the failure to solve cases is described as a “severe disservice to victims,” highlighting a systemic failure in providing access to justice. The fact that “roughly half of murderers can expect to get away with it” is a direct challenge to the principle of justice for all.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   Explanation: The article questions the effectiveness and accountability of police agencies. It points to a significant contradiction: while “state and local government spending on police increased from $47 billion to $135 billion” between 1977 and 2021, the “percentage of violent crimes reported that get ‘cleared’ (solved) has been stagnant at best.” The clearance rate itself is presented as a key metric for “evaluating how well the criminal justice system does at catching people who commit crimes,” making it a tool for measuring institutional effectiveness and accountability.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article is built around a central indicator and provides data for several others that can measure progress:

• Clearance Rates for Violent Crimes: This is the primary indicator discussed. The article explicitly states that “Clearance rates measure the percentage of reported crimes that result in a suspect being arrested.” It provides specific data, such as “In 2022, only 37% of violent crimes were cleared.” This directly measures the effectiveness of the justice system in responding to violence (Target 16.1, 16.3, 16.6).
• Clearance Rates for Homicides: The article provides a historical trend for this specific indicator to show a decline in effectiveness. It notes that in the “mid-1960s, more than 90% of murders were solved nationally,” which dropped to “just over half” by 2022. This is a powerful indicator for progress towards reducing violence and ensuring justice (Target 16.1, 16.3).
• Public Expenditure on Law Enforcement: The article uses spending as an indicator of resource allocation to contrast with performance. It cites that from 1977 to 2021, “spending on police increased… by 189%.” This financial data, when compared with stagnant or declining clearance rates, serves as an indicator of institutional inefficiency, which is relevant to Target 16.6.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: reason.org