Imagine that you are a research analyst in the office of a U.S. senator.In light of the challenges described above, she has asked you to explain the most and least desirable crime control policies from an economic perspective. . The explanation should start with two bullet points: 1) one or two crime control policies she should support on economic grounds, and 2) one or two crime control policies she should not support on economic grounds. Each bullet should explain what the policy is and why it is a worthwhile or undesirable idea based on economic arguments about crime control.The remainder of the explanation should be on how economic theory and evidence support the policies you recommend, and on how theory and evidence discourage the policies you don't recommend, and one concluding paragraph.

Give the Senator a concrete sense of the costs of your recommendations and how big the benefits are likely to be. If there is uncertainty about costs, benefits, magnitudes, or directions of effects, be upfront about what we don't know. Making clear and effective policy recommendations isn't about confidence; it's about an honest representation of the evidence. Note that the senator has other members of her team to advise her on the politics of the situation, so you should avoid political or strategic arguments; focus on what economics tells us about the crime effects of the policies you discuss.

Some possible policies from which you might pick 2-4 to analyze and elaborate: incarcerating more or fewer people, incarcerating different types of people, increasing or decreasing police, changing police strategies, subsidizing work or work training programs (in general or for a specific population), focusing on economic growth more broadly, particular kinds of supply control for specific drug markets, particular demand reduction efforts for specific drug markets, prohibition, decriminalization, large or small taxes on all or particular drugs, polices to encourage or improve education, or policies to address childhood exposure to toxins like lead.

A successful answer will use both theory and evidence in both sections of the explanation. It will also discuss evidence, costs, and benefits concretely. For example, you could use the magnitudes of the effects from a study you used in your argument to estimate how much your key outcome is likely to change in the senator's state, and then use those predictions to estimate the costs and benefits of that policy.